BISHOP BURGESS'S 

VINDICATION OP 

BISHOP CLEAVER'S EDITION 

0F THE av 4-1, w 

" Decretum Lacedaemoniorum contra limotaeum, 

IN ANSWER TO 

RICHARD PAYNE KNIGHT. 

A xnost interests work, particularly valuable for the vindication of the 
celebrated verse of St. John. 

Not Printed for Sale. 



f 



iA 



<n> 



4q6 



/ 




A 




VINDICATION 



BISHOP CLEAVER'S EDITION 



OF THE 



DECRETUM LACED^EMONIORUM 



Contra Cimotfjeum. 






V 






VINDICATION 



OF 

BISHOP CLEAVER'S EDITION 

\ 

OF THE 

DECRETUM LACEDjEMONIORUM 
CONTRA TIMOTHEUM, 

FROM 

THE STRICTURES OF R. P. KNIGHT, Esa. 



BY THE 

^ BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S. 



LONDON: 

PRINTED BY J. NICHOLS AND SON, 25, PARLIAMENT STREET. 






/ 



f|V** 



<?<* 
^ 



205449 
^13 






■ ■ 






ptx44t***>< *l*U****A ***** 

/ 4 

ADVERTISEMENT. 



The subject of the following pages was com- 
menced as a Postscript to a Letter to the Bishop of 
Durham, on the Origin, Form, and Pronunciation 
of the iEolic Digamma. The Postcript has been 
printed some years, but not published, for reasons 
in which the Public are not interested. A printed 
copy of it was given to Dr. Hales previously to the 
publication of his Work on Faith in the Holy 
Trinity ; which I mention on account of a refer- 
ence, which he made to it in the Second Volume, 
as if it had been then published. It is now dis- 
tributed as presents to a few Friends, for the 
sake of that part of its contents (p. 61 — &J^) 
which relates to the celebrated verse of St. John 
in his First Epistle, the authenticity of which I 
hope to prove on grounds of external evidence, as 
well as internal, by Greek authorities as well as 
Latin, in a Vindication of it from the objections 
of 3f. Griesbach and others. 



■^ 



VI . ADVERTISEMENT. 

From the singular curiosity of this ancient mo- 
nument of Greek literature, it appeared desirable 
that fac-similes should be taken of its more re- 
markable manuscripts ; which has been done, and 
will, I trust, be acceptable to the learned Reader. 
Of the fac-similes which are prefixed to this Tract, 
those which are from manuscripts in the Bod- 
leian Library and the British Museum, were 
copied by the Artists who engraved them. The 
fac-simile of the Manuscript in the Library of 
Trinity College, Cambridge, was very obligingly 
taken for me by the Rev. James Hustler, 
Fellow and Tutor of the College, who afterwards 
compared the lithographic engraving with the 
manuscript, and the plate was finished according 
to his corrections. The fac-similes have been all 
executed since the following pages were printed. 

T. ST. DAVIDS. 
London, May 16,1821. 



CONTENTS. 



Page 
Fac- si miles of Bodleian, Selden, Harl. Reg. et 

Trin. Coll; Cantab, mansucripts. 

Objects of the Postscript 2 

Language of the Spartan Decree ...... 2 

Characteristics of the Spartan dialect ... 2, note 

The Decree a great literary curiosity .... 3 

Subject of the Decree 3 

Various editions of the Decree 4 

Text of Ed. Bas. 1570 6 

Text of Ed. Oxon. 1 777. Uteris min 7 

Text of Ed. Gronov 8 

Text of Ed. Oxon. literis maj. ...... 9 

Editoris Oxoniensis Latina Versio 10 

Collation of' text Oxon. with Ed. Bas. etGron. . 13 

Interchange of et S .. 15 

Affinity between the iEolic Digamma and the 

Spartan B 10 

Use of P for X in past participles 2S 

The Latin language a species of JEolic dialect 24 
Feminine nouns singular derived from neuter par- 
ticiples plural 25, note 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

Page 

yEolic terminations of Latin words 25 

Origin of active nouns from passive participles . 25 

The simplest of our apprehensions denominated 

from passive participial forms ..... 25 
Am!; not a mere curator or superintendent . . 29 
Origin and meaning of the word ctva§ . 30 

False assumptions of revolutionary principles . . 30 

Homers anti-democratic principles 31 

A passage of Homer explained 37 

Evagju,ov*o£, its different meaning, when applied to 

ancient and to modern music .... 40,41 
Moral character of ancient Greek music . . . 46 
The chief materials of Christian education, 

what 48, note 

Music an ordinary part of Greek education . . 48 

Moral effects of ancient music 49 

Influence of music on national manners . . 51* 52 

Excerptum ex Boethii libro 55 

Text of the Spartan Decree as proposed to be read 56 

English translation of the Decree 57 

Preservation of the Decree by Boethius ... 6*2 
1 John, v. 7. preserved by Latin writers ... 63 
The whole passage (ver. 7, 8.) first quoted by 

Latin writers 6*5 

Comparative history of the Spartan Decree, and 

of 1 John v. 7 , . 65 

Defence of Bishop Cleaver's list of books for the 

younger Clergy 6*7—76 

Larcher's recantation of his anti-christian opinions 77 



a*. 



■V^C/WETe paw 
iXTXTf elf T3L 

fi% c ro w atn cu t», 
aV&TOCTlVjeiC 

-5JAH EJKJXaXOM 
ra- tr>v ^oc ixvcUj^ 

ciitte&ejtm ^.liauict 

j ETfiijjqpris riTOK 



Ex Codice MS. Coll. Trin. Cantab 



<]rv(c^iaiu titn ot\xt,ixC -m^dvus 



VLtnievt itv noftrcyfn 



<sn*\y&<y -<mto-e-£o£ oramciop flxpyiiWHo-p ex x^ouvre^im 

tiwxzsce™ / 2LTitric t u, 5v .ii> ^v<njj-i^ ^pevneu^ A-rtem^ dp earn fivetrr {cpzey^ 

porwrxm. n&ua,^ ^ioxvf attja\c xeiu. xrxtf AaranrelfTx 

cor^vuw ati)ir^ frlmoec? . £ w<nSuUtve£ rrmUa^ Mocef •Hicrotmeenf 



g*rvuf conjtvettcTV^ 



4v°^| -*|fc ^noTtiuf. <Ltu*f*PK* 'pg'CH£Vej?nix^tn^Tivco 



ria^wp TAifTo^veAio]? juacIicY'vj A^riTAp ei^pMfofnu v\jc\ii^ '" 
ciHi^A^m^rpoc ^7\peT)6Aiec RexcATorATj rivmr^xia/ckeiAH 



TAVfTA^ C£*A£\*P ivXlH^p crAeKAiKXTOp ^EO]3A.ll^KK€ZeAO>l-e- 
TApTJ£*plTA^ YlT0A1^0XV£t]0 rX»€TJ rXXUTfO^ CKAcToV TOT*£ 

Aiop B^-pop opiovj o^b^tai ett^kctta]>ta^ t w^pr^ titon 

^^^XVXU^ l^ETO^ A\E. trc T£T* £A^€TA'p ]^eo:p ATO>^VlJ r 






Jt JW artln.Zil/uH/'.', 'gochej-ter- 1" Wr-r/imrurter. . 



p 






2 x$ 

$±3 



ISS5E ,**§ 

*• *_* o j <s a 






«*i I Mill 



to 







a s sis la, •« o 

Gu4 p. ^ X G P Iq 



art* 
?l£l& i 2 ^ 



as £ 



I*"* 



ill 



^ S 12.. 



PP 



^ts Ns a«>- 










p*- 




111 
£••5 Jl .3 its 








t+j.Aijocjve . h>oto€rVi<vp. jioat. 4>oht^h. et caf<?**. Ata^ms r*) .Tap. 4&oiu* . 
Ton Heon Aiereraf.Jflo;^^ 



r 



rt jirrWcf./ <wc«#J<*nc<^ ' fiftieth dim. ' hMtbtin* a«n?. 7 ^ wwJttf^ 







>$tut 







em-3*pm-wa^^*#i<^4^^ _ 

* atttWt •**&#£ £ „ mwtat ckw rt cm ..uetta 

W^-toaaaeop-afew « 

tta ^tiwouan^oa^- eft)* Yp^aapP *<mttt.ra#^TWfo*aae& 

* -ttttm/ autem, ^*: A agon? ' itettttur mjt 

a^-fimt)-tunc*mt-<^:Oo\|-ati^.iiatatt -fcrtta^W aula 



mop -afit^at^tteitafo -tantioatt • <uiautpatx-timt4P-tea 

aaeaapl fy^*etpiabp44^ 

torn -top ^§&ap T*ai -to w$Spp •aaSwatai Tu^»m. 

fnoarnoaaeHu)tap-ctTO-orope ttattSp to-tap* fto&op -wtpp 

evtcntaa tvcfez.tr btfc*^ *15 ttmvtmiHl.- 

M^-aae^-j-ap^ep^vScop -atoqto>v 



sus. 

c-trny^H e-rAioe-€o» 

TOlletf ucmeuS vtt no/trawi, emirate 

om^ttctop -rr&pn am 150? £TfM)otLE?tip&tf ^oaajj tsu*, 

dtmqud .pprtd (peramT At-ce & e<,e£ propter frpre cox<£d 
TT2uUAl} ^J0a^ 3iTt2JLJcC 2teK&tTa.lfJ dAATTArJ eiTTiVcopA. 
ru otc-Wram lubuercrc. AmoiuWione muLtAfy°ce(\tvr?o 

a^ ky-e-kpixtq earocTpe <poa&£qoc ttqa^ovi eica, 

ducettf clemolW^ au^txits tuuetva- per mitlcaS^ 

tov) ^j*adAicj£T^T2up&>ioA.p Toqrjeocj &aa. TEapTCoy^ 

coadaS <£ewvm tvoudm tnoduLaoue 5ettiux <% udn^ 

xop Ai&p Kaar&p fcaqo-rarop ToakEkeop ar^tj *m fcaxTot - 

no men xtt cro nmncu ^e^^f con ffciT/uetvs quo6 eft 

etcixpoaw^rocTv^Eic Tkfl&'E^op r^ Toaate/ctop A\&cfce\q 

-molUuf cluufumc,^ ^^ eudTTtvon\cof<ucvenf. cfcuiLeruonem w,u - 

&t}oriTkp e^^p M^ov)tto ttoitz^ a/crocTpocf>oq 6\,&ao- 
lea^-Tr^^V^^ ^ e ^\ v*i T £tfc T0 ^ Tap e^e^rcmiap 

mairrvS tut-pveufctticta dxuul^dw f^u/ofd cits peril V 

AfiLM^^Tpoc difpc^e A,iec kEXcaror^rcua^iTa; &xeu:£e; 

cme. h emtn eme^ef-t-foirv par-cuY* xiouem. utt^ecicS tvoua. doc 

xr^txa. Joaut. V ie rait 'bu'b TCccef '„ & re 

&Ute Ae^oxe-^a, TfeproyToi^ Toctfm^e&pUaxTopE 

rozer ac cu f<xt>awt tttrto-tfyeum db^lbtt dU <**. 

undeeimrt. co^ctam e^CTende-nO fuper FludS reltcx* 






^e^o xApYryTA^Tj-op ck.a,c Top TOTa-pTfo^tdlp B^pop 

grants -pxxautc ne m {p&.TndT<vru c*uxwcc aUauud vnd.u-cecct: 

omen* a&BerurrT^ cvT*p-raq Fj|t<pcpE^Tifov]av|kA./CcaH 



POSTSCRIPT. 



IVIr. Payne Knight, in his Analytical Essay on the 
Greek alphabet, has called the Digamma Pelasgic, 
and the Capuan figure, its Pelasgic form*. But, as 
I observed before, this is not the kind of authority, 
which Dawes's argument requires. To his ancient 
authorities for the term ^Eolic, as the designation of 
the Digamma, some other ancient writers should be 
opposed, who call it the Pelasgic Digamma. If we 
put ancient authorities out of the question, how shall 
we decide between Dawes and Mr. Knight ? By a 
perusal of the Miscellanea Critica, and the Analytical 
Essay. Comparisons are sometimes called invidious. 
But, in this case, comparison is the only criterion, 
which can enable us to determine, whose judgment 
we shall follow. 

Of the Analytical Essay a large portion is employed 
on gratuitous generalities of derivation, which, of 
course, can form no part of the comparison. But the 
last section of the Essay is on a subject strictly philo- 
logical, the right reading of the text of the Lacedae- 
monian Decree against Timotheus. We have there a 
test of the Author's accuracy and knowledge of Greek, 
from which the reader may easily form a comparison 

* Analytical Essay, p. 10, 35. 
B 



2 

of the two authorities ; and I am the more inclined f,o 
apply this test, in the hope of vindicating from the 
unmerited asperities of Mr. Knight's strictures, the 
late Bishop of St. Asaph's edition of this Decree ; and, 
may I add ? of counteracting, in some measure, that 
spirit of hardy and unexemplified assertion, which dis- 
tinguishes the new school of criticism, and which, 
when applied to the language and doctrines of Scrip- 
ture, as we see it applied in the writings of Socinians 
and Unitarians, by setting at nought all analogy and 
authority, is most injurious to learning and religion. 

The Decree was passed, about 400 years before the 
Christian era, by the Spartan Senate against Timotheus 
for corrupting the simplicity of ancient music by intro- 
ducing innovations in the structure of the Lyre, and 
increasing the number of its strings from seven to 
eleven, which, by its variety, they thought conducive to 
luxury and effeminacy, and injurious to public virtue. 
The Decree is written in the^Eolic dialect of Sparta*, 

* iEolism pervaded almost ever/ part of Greece, except Athens. 
The Spartan Dialect was a species of the iEolic. It was distin- 
guished chiefly by the use of P for 2 at the end of words, as in 
Bocpop |l«\£o$» for Ba^oj, /xeXsos : of B instead of the Digamma, as in 
BcSog, B*$vs, Bufcxiog, for l$o$, $vg, *s\wc : of 2 instead of ®, as <nof , 
fro-of, ivcco-op, which are examples also of the preceding idioms, for 
Seo?, 3og, wSoj. It had also the common iEolisms of a and e for *, 
of o or u for ou , £ for a-, in the first futures and aorists, sv for ug, ttot* 
for <x$og, &c. Very few remains of Laconian literature are extant, of 
which this Decree and the Spartan league in Thucydides, and the 
Amyclaean inscriptions, if genuine, are the most remarkable. 
Hesycliius has preserved a large number of Laconian words. 



and is a great literary curiosity. Boethius, better known 
for his work De Consolatione Philosophice, than for 
his Treatise on Mask, who has preserved the Decree 
in the latter work, thus notices it. " Consultant de eo 
factum est, quod quoniam insigne est Spartiatarum 
linguae S literam in R vertentium, ipsum de eo consul- 
turn eisdem verbis Grcecis apposui." Casaubon calls it 
antiquissimum et pulcherrimum vetustatis monimen- 
tum*. Barthelemy thus describes the subject of the 
Decree : " Timotheus was accused of having wounded 
" the majesty of the ancient music, and endeavoured 
" to corrupt the Spartan youth by the indecency, the 

Meursius has collected them together in his Miscellanea Laco- 
nica, III. 5 — 8. Casaubon has made a collection of such as end 
in P. in his Arrimadv. ad Athen. p. 615. Of the Laconian dialect 
Valckenaer treats largely, and with his usual pre-eminent learning, 
ad Theoc. Adon. p. 271 — 292. This portion of Greek philology 
was very little explored in the seventeenth century. Meibomius (in 
a letter quoted by Maittaire ad Marm. Oxon. p. 653.) considers the 
Spartan P, as a nullity, and says, even with Boethius and this decree 
before him, that he never met with any authority for the idiom ; 
(to which Maittaire opposes the authorities of Plato, Strabo, Athe- 
nseus, Hesychius, Phrynichus, Eustathius, and Phavorinus ;) and 
accordingly proposes to erase the P at the end of the words Ti^oS.^ 
<nma-Tajusvo£, #c. and to expunge the words of Boethius, which certify 
the change of S into R. A more profligate instance of that wilful 
depravation by which the writings of the ancients have been cor- 
lupted and mutilated, is not easily to be met with. Of the MoWc 
termination in P, and of the prevalence of this Spartan holism in 
the Latin language, more will be said in this Postscript. 

* Animadv. ad Athenaeum, p. 615. 



iC variety, and loftiness of his performances. He was 
" ordered to retrench four strings from his lyre, with 
u this observation ; that such an example ought for 
" ever to put an end to novelties, which encroach on 
" severity of manners. It deserves to be remarked, 
" that this Decree passed about the time that the La- 
cc cedemonians gained that celebrated victory of iEgos 
" Potamos, which rendered them masters of Athens *." 
The first copy of this Decree was published, in com- 
mon Greek, by Lilius Gyraldus, in his work De Poetis, 
in the year 1545, which was repeated and amended by 
Leopardus in his Emendationes, who at the same time 
inserted a very incorrect copy of the Decree, vetere 
Dorica, from a MS. of Petrus Nannius. The Emenda- 
tiones, though written many years before, were not 
published till 1568. The Decree made its first appear- 
ance in the printed works of Boethius, in Glareanus's 
edition, in the year 1 546*. The last edition was in a 
separate form by the late learned Bishop of St. Asaph, 
Dr. Cleaver, in the year 1777. In the interval of 
these dates it was published, and more or less amended 
by the Basil Editor 1570, Scaliger 16*00, Casaubon 
1600, Salmasius 164.S, Bullialdus 16*44, Bishop Fell 
1672, Gronovius 1699, Chishull 1728, and Maittaire 
1732.f 

* Travels of Anacharsis, vol. II. p. 98, 99. English Tr. 8vo. 

f " In hoc Decreto emendando & illustrando certavit eruditorum 
hominum industria, e quibus nominare licet Lilium Gyraldum dia- 
logo IX. de poetis; PaulumLeopardumYlU. 4. Emendat.; Josephum 
Scaligerum p. 285. ad Sphseram barbaricam Manilii, quern sequitur 
Jo. Fellus ad calcem Arati, Oxon. 1672. 8. editi. p. 66 ; Is. Casau- 



That the reader may better judge of the state of the 
Oxford text, as published by the Bishop of St. Asaph, 
and of the correctness of Mr. Knight's strictures, I will 
here present him with the three copies of it, which are 
in Mr. Knight's Essay, from the Ed. Bas. 1570, 
from Gronovius, and from the last Oxford edition. 
To these copies I have subjoined the readings of the 
Oxford edition as they differ from the text of the Ed. 
Bas. 1570, and of Gronovius. 

bonum VIII. 11. ad Athenaeum ; Jo. Meursium III. 5. [& II. 8.] 
Misc. Lacon. j Joh. Seldenum II. 10. §. 8. de Synedrio (ubi peculiari 
dissertatione illud SCtum exposuisse se adfirmat, quae rum vidit lu- 
cem, licet tribus verbis idem Ephororum decretum tangat notis ad 
Chron. Marmoreum, p. 197) 3 Ism. Bullialdum ad Theonem Smyr- 
naeum, p. 295, 19 ; Claudium Salmasium de Hellenistica, p. 82; G.I. 
Vossium L. IV. Inst. Orat. p. 50 ; A. Schottum ad Procli Chresto- 
mathiam, & Jac. Gronovium Praef. ad tomum quintum Thesauri An- 
tiq. Graec. j Steph. le Moyne, p. 852. ad Varia Sacra; Thorn. Pinedo 
ad Stephan. p. 776 j Edm. Chishull. p. 128. Antiq. Asiatic; Mich. 
Muittaire ad Marmora Oxoniensia, p. 569. 595. 596. 654. ubi 
contra Mat cum Meibomium probat Lacones mutasse S in P. Respicit 
illud decretum Dio Chrysostom. Orat. 32. p. 38. (Fabricii Biblioth. 
Gr. vol. II. p. 289.) vide Guil. Fornerium ad Cassiodori lib. I. epist. 
45. p. 222. Heumanrj. etiam supra Tom. II. p. 325." (Fabricii Bibl. 
Gr. nov. ed. Harles. vol. III. p. 478. not.) 



6 



DECRETUM LACEDyEMONIORUM 

ED. BAS. 1570. 

1 E7TSI 6£ T^O^SOO 6 MiXS(TiOg TTGLpayilX-VOO £V TOLV 

2 a\xn£pav 7ro7<iv, rav 7ra.hv.1a1v [xohwrp ari[j.a(ras, *a* 

3 rav §ia Trav £7rra %opoav x&api^si, flwro<rTpe$ojw,£yog 

4 7ro?M$G)Viav ei&aytov, y^jfj.aiv-rai rag axoa£ tow Vea>v 

5 S*a T£ rag 7roKuy(op6ao, xai rao xajyoraTae 1 ty/j- 

6 T«)i/ [xshsog aysws, xai 7roixiXa,v avn ajrXoav 3 xai 

7 T£ray[K£Vav a[A<piai)iav juioXtt^v stti %pa)y.aroo rrvvsi- 

8 <TTV~\hzv tovtqu fxshzoo oiao~rao~iv. Avti yaq Eva 3- 

9 fjLOVHa Troiav avTicrrpetyov a[xoi$av. TIapaxhaQsig Os sv 
10 tov aycova rao Ehsuviviao Aa^arpoo oaar^oo 
1 J 8i£Cp7]juu£sTO rav Tip fxu^cp xj$yr i o~ii'. Tav yao %stL£- 

12 Xa oWav oux £vh=xaroo vsoo o&ayry so»Sa^5. E;r<z 

13 7r*pi touto)V tov fdao~i7^sav xai rou p7]ropoo fX£^arat 

14 Tijxo^-eov. E7ravar^£Tai §s xai Tay Ivostfa %opoav 

15 sxravooo rao Trspiao-rao, £7rsi7\ii7ro[££voi rav htra.- 
\6 %opoou atrroo. To yao ttoKioq fiapog cltttov Tsrap- 

1 7 |3iJTflti ££ rav %7raprav ETrityspsiV T&cov [kx\ xaXwv 

18 j/tjtojVj jxrj 7tot£ rocpaTTr^Ton x7^soo ayopwv. 

Lectiones Ed. Oxon. ab Ed. Bas. 1570 variantes. 
Ver. 1. eirutin. Tiy.oa-i.oP. MlXolctiop TrcLoaykvopivoP. 

Ver. 2. TraXsav. (AtOMV. aTijUaddSl. 

Ver. 3. rav £OT«. >«crapiTiv. Ver. 5. JcsyoTaro^. 

Ver. 6. 7' ?<" p&eop. Ver. 7« aTrXoa^. Ver. 8. TSTapsvaj. apiumv- 
rcu rccv jixwav. Ver. 7. 8. avvKTrocfxEvop. rav t&j. SixiPto-iv. Ver. 9. 
Troiwv ouiTUTTPotyo)) . H<x,pc<.-/.Xcc^sip. Ver. 10. avpevn. Ver. 11. dWxfua- 
o-aro. d'tao-xjuav. t^ St/xrXa^. Ver. 12. wdW. Ivd't/ta twj. Abest Bra. 
Supplet As^o^Sai. Ver. 13. toutoiv. tw§ fiao-iXtccp. tup styoposp (ae^uo-voli. 
Ver. 14. Ti/xo<7toy S9ravay>cac7a*. Ver. 15. EKTCLfASV. TTEPiTiup v7roXst7rofxivov 

TAP ITiTOC. Ver. 16. 07TW£ VK0l,<7T0P. TXP. OPUV EVXufiriTGll. Ver. 17- «V. 



CONTRA TIMOTHEUM. 

ED. OXON. 1777- UTERIS MINOR1BU3. 

1 RTTSiorj Ti ( aoo"io^ o MiXaenoo irapaywo^voo su rav 

2 apsrspav TroTiiv rav 7raXsav [Acnav an^a^ei, xai 

3 rav 8ia rav lirra yophav xurapiriv a^rocrrps^o^svoo 

4 TroKvtyayvioLv sitraycov 7ivp.aivsrai rao axoag rcov vscov, 

5 Sja T£ rao 7ra\'jyo>3iiao xai rao xzvoraroo rto 

6 juisXsoo aysvvr) xai nroixCKav avn a7r7^oa$> xai 

7 rerapsvao a^7rsvvorat rav pwav stti %pwy*aroo cuvi- 

8 <TTOLfJ.Sl>0Q TOiV TO) [JLSXSQg StOLlpEClV, OLVTl TCiO £VOLQ- 
,9 [lOVlCD* 7T01COV OLVTKTTpofyoV a^OlftoLV' 7FCLpOLX7\cSs^ &£ 

10 xai sv rov aymva rap 'EfasVCWioLo Aa^arpoo airozTZT] 

1 1 biso-xsvatraro rav tcd jlw>c*o> hia<rxsu(x.v 1 rav rao 5^a5- 

12 Xag w^iva oux ev^ixa tcdq vscno s?)i%a{~sv. AsQoffiai . . 

13 n"£§* rouroiv rcog fiaciT^saz xai rmo £<pooa)% LLcfj^aa-Qai 

14 Tipoo-iov, sTravayxacrai Zs xai rau svSsxa %op$av 

15 exratxsv rao irzQirrao v~o\si7roii*svov rao hirra. 
ifi 07ra)^ sxafrroo to rao zroXi'og ftapoo bpouv sv7^aj6rjrai 
1/ E'j rav *%7?aprav £7ri(pspzv ri rwv p7j xa7\mv rftwv, 
l8 p-/j7roT£ rapaTTTjTai xXzoq aycovcvv. 

Lectiones Ed. Oxon. ab ed. Gronoviana variantes. 

Ver. 1. TtjU.oc-to£. MiAacio^. 7ra^ayivoju.£vo^. £y. Ver. 2. flraAeav, arijuad- 
^£t. Ver. 3. £7rra. Htcra^JTiv. Ver. 4. TroXi^wviav. rwv vswv. Ver. 5. 
y.ivcT&Tog. Ver. 7. a/ATrjyvt/ra*. Ver. 8. o*atf?criv. Ver. 9. TTotwv. av- 
Ttcrr^o^ov. Tra^axXavEjo. Ver. 10. sy. Ver. II. ^i£<r>i<?ua:rsi7o. juwctoj <W- 
crxjuav. tk» tkj. Ver. 12. w^tva. sv^jxcc. tWaffv. Af^op^ai. Ver. 13. 
p-f^atrvat. Ver. 14. Tiuotiov £7rc£va<yxacrat. Ver. 16. ottoo°. Ver. 17. 

* The Editor has restored the masculine form instead of the 
feminine svu^ona^, in his Addenda & Corrigenda. Compound ad- 
jectives usually retain their masculine form, though connected with 
feminine nouns. 



8 

DECRETUM LACEDjEMONIORUM. 

ED. GRONOVII*. 

1 E7T5i£>] TjfJt0^60£ MlAlJCiOg TTOLpyi^eVO^ £T TOLV ol^ste- 

2 poLv 7co'kiv tolv waT^onav ]xo>av ar^acrag hy, xai tolv 

3 $iol tolv ek%ol %op$oLV x&0Lpi%iv olwog-t psfyopsvog, 7ro- 

4 Au<£tt)j/ov sKTOLywv "hu^onvsTOLi tolo olxoolq Tcog vecoq, 

5 wars Tag iroT^u-^opbioLo xai tolo xolivqtoltoo to) jUisAsog 

6 aysvvrj xoli 7rotxi7^av olvti olttT^oolo xoli tetol^kevolo 

7 OL^^iEVVUTOLl TOLV fAWOLV E7TI XpcOfJLOLTOQ, (TMVi(TTOL}XtV0O 

8 TOLV TO) JUISXSOO blOLCTXElOLV OLVTI TOLO EVOLp[K0Via) 7T0T TOLV 

2 OL7ro<rTpo$>ov a|xo*|3av 7rapoLx7^rft£ig $e xai st tov 

10 aycavot tolo EXsuenwag AafxoLTpoo oltt pEizy\ 8jsc"7reu- 

1 1 caro Ta^ to) pu&a) $iol(Txeiolv, tolo tolo %s^sKolo a>- 

12 SivoLQ oux ev ftixco two vscdq §i§olxxs' %s$qxtoli $>olv 

13 TTSpt TOVTCOV TOLO fioL(Tl?<EOLO, XOLI TWO E$OpOQ ^S^OLTTOLl 

14 Tipo&eov, BTTOLVOLyxoLTOLi &s xai tolv hv^Exa^op^iav 

15 EXTOL^XEiV TOLO 7T£plTT0LO UWQ7^l7rO^.SVOV TOLO E7TT0L' 
\6 07TSO EXOLtTTOQ TO TOLQ 7ToAtQg fioLpOQ hoWV £\}\OL$f\T OLi 

17 ST TOLV %7T0LpT0LV E7TKpEpSV TE TO)V jU,7} XOCkdiV E^TCOV, jlWJ 

18 7T0TE T0LpOLTTf\T0Ll xTlSOg OLywVWV. 

* This copy of Gronovius's text is printed from the Analytical 
Essay. The readings in which the Oxford text differs from Grono- 
vius's are at the bottom of the preceding page. Four of the read- 
ings of the above text are in Mr. Knight's edition, but not in Gro- 
novius's : line 1. dpersgav, 1. 3. Infa, 1. 16. Int^, 1. 17. re, and are 
errors of the press for I^ts^ocv, wrr&, wag, r*. Six other readings I 
conceive to be also erroneous in Gronovius's own text: 1.3. xi$«s*£ii» 

for Xj9"»g*ftVj 1. 4. twj ve«£ for ruv vewv, 1. 10. SmnrmcrciTO for ^ ntrx.svcra.ro, 

1. 12. h™ for 3w, 1. 13. eippgeg for f^^ like its article ru>§, and 
1. 14. £»ka^ojLv for IvSckoc, ^o^av undecim chordarum ; all of which 
are correctly given in the Oxford edition. 



CONTRA TIMOTHEUM. 

ED. OXOX. 1777- LITER1S MAJUSCULIS. 

EIIEIAE TIMOSIOP HO MIAASIOP IIAPAri- 
NOMENOP EN TAX HAMETEPAN nOAIN TAX 
IIAAEAN MOAN ATIMAAAEI KAI TAX AIA 
TAX HEDTAXOPAAX KFSAPITIN AriOSTPE- 
4>OMEXOP nOAY4>OMAX EISATOX AYMAI- 
XETAI TAP AKOAP TOX XEOX AIA TE TAP 
nOATXOPAIAP KAI TAP KEXOTATOP TO ME- 
AEOP ATEXXE KAI HOIKIAAX AXTI HAIIAO- 
AP KAI TETAMENAP AMIIEXXYTAI TAX MO- 
AX Eni XPOMATOP STXTSTAMEXOP TAX TO 
MEAEOP AIAIPE2IX AXTI TAP EXAPMOXTO 
nOIOX AXTI2TP0<I>0X AMOIBAX. IIAPAKAA- 
OEIP AE KAI EX TOX AIDXA TAP EAEY2IXI- 
AP AAMATPOP * AnPEnE AIE5KEYA2ATO 
TAX TO MY20 AIASKETAX TAX TAP 2EME- 
AAP OAIXA OYK EXAIK A TOP XEOP EAIAAK- 
2E AEAOX0AI . . IIEPI TOTTOIX TOP BA2I- 
AEAP KAI TOP E4>OPOP MEM^ASBAI TIMO- 
SIOX EIIAXATKASAI AE KAI TAX HEXAEKA 
XOPAAX EKTAMEX TAP nEPITTAP YIIOAEI- 
nOMEXOX TAP HEIITA HOnOP HEKA2TOP 
TO TAP nOAIOP BAPOP HOPOX EYAABETAI 
EX TAX 211 APT AX Eni4>EPEX TI TOX ME 
KAAOX E20X MEnOTE TAPATTETAI KAE- 
OP ATOXON. 

* This reading ^Yas undoubtedly intended by the Editor ; for so 
it is expressed in the other copy ; and in all the Oxford MSS. 
And so it ought to have been printed in the Analytical Essay. 



10 



EDITORIS OXON1ENSIS LATIN A VERSIO. 

Quandoquidem Timotheus Milesius adveniens ad nostram urbem, 
antiquam illam musicam dcdecorat, eamque septem chordarum ci- 
tharizationem aversatus, dum nimiam varietatem sonorum intro- 
ducit, aures juvenum corrumpit, & per multas chordas & novitatem 
melodise pro simplici & uniformi (voces) induit musica ignobili & 
varia, in Chromatico genere componens musicae apparatum, & pro 
continuo (cantu) faciens responsionem antistrophicam, [scilicet, ut 
sint periodi aaquales & sibi invicem respondentes] : quinetiam quum vo- 
caretur ad Eleusiniee Cereris ludos indecorum fabulse apparavit ap- 
paratum, nimirum Semeles partus, ut non oportebat, juvenes do- 
cuit : Placere itaque ut Reges & Ephori ob haec duo, [scilicet impi- 
etatem, & ob ea quae in musica innovaverat,~] turn reprehendant Timo- 
theum, turn cogant insuper undecim e chordis rescindere servantem 
tantum septem : ut unusquisque videns civitatis gravitatem vereatur 
in Spartam inferre aliquid bonis moribus non conveniens, ne forte 
olim turbetur decus certaminum. 

In printing the preceding copies of the Decree Mr. 
Knight has given not a very favourable specimen of his 
own Editorship. He hascommittedtwoerrors in printing 
the text of the Basil edition : &is$7]ju,*£sto for Sts^pcraTo, 
and sTrsiXsiTro/xsvop for £7nA£J7r. In the Oxford copy he 
has left two readings, which ought not to be there, 
suagpoviag, which the Editor corrected in his Addenda 
8$ Corrigenda ; and AAMATPOS, which was an 
error of the press for AAMATPOP; as is evident from 
the second copy, which is in the smaller letter. In 
Gronovius's copy he has introduced four errors of the 
press, which are not in the original, dixsrsqotu, ix^a, 
o7T£%, re. We will now see, if he has succeeded better 
in censuring the Editorship of others. 

In order to pass a right judgement on the Oxford 
edition of this Decree, Mr. Knight should have been 
well acquainted with the labours of preceding Editors, 



11 

and with the new materials, which the Oxford Editor 
collected from MSS. for the improvement of the new 
edition. Of the former Editors Mr. Knight seems to 
have known very little. For he says, that " Gronovius 
Jirst endeavoured seriously to restore the text of the 
Decree." How r contrary this is to the fact, we know 
from two competent judges, Fabricius and Chishull. 
When Fabricius first published his Bibliotheca Graeca 
(Hamburg. 1 705.) Gronovius was ihelast of many Edi- 
tors ; yet Fabricius says, " In hoc decreto emendando 
& illustrando certavit eruditorum hominum industrial 
And who were these eruditi homines which preceded 
Gronovius ? Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, &c. Of 
Scaliger's edition Bishop Fell says : Verum Jos. Sca- 
liger notis suis in Manil. ex MSS. codicibus (ut ait) 
priscam illi formam restituit. Scaliger however left 
not a little to be done by future editors. Of the several 
preceding editions, the text which Chishull preferred 
was not Gronovius's, but that of Bullialdus, of which 
Maittare gives the following account. u His addendus 
est Ismael Bullialdus in Theon. Srnyrn. editione, Lutet. 
Paris. 1644. 4. p. 295. Bullialdus in restituendo hoc 
decreto scribit se usum fuisse pluribus libris MSS. Se- 
verini Boetii de Musica, quos nactus est in Bibliotheca 
Regia, Thuana, & Abbatiae Sancti Germani in Pratis, 
sed prae caeteris libro MS. vetustissimo nitideque ad- 
modum in membrana scripto bibliothecae Petri et 
Iacobi Puteanorum fratrum, ex quo libro totum fere 
correxit. Id observandum est Chishullianam Decreti 
descriptionem in omnibus fere cum Bullialdiana con- 
venire'' (Ad Marm. Oxon. p. 595. Not.) 



12 

Mr. Knight was as much mistaken in his account of 
the new critical materials, and in the general notice 
which he gives, of the Oxford Edition. " In the 
" year 1 777 a more correct copy (of the Decree) was 
"published from some Manuscripts at Oxford, accom- 
" panied with variations found in other Manuscripts 
fl belonging to the University; and a critical and ex- 
" planatory Commentary by the learned and respect- 
u able Prelate, who published it. This copy. w 7 ith the 
" variations, was as follows." The copy, which follows 
these words of Mr. Knight, is not a copy of the Oxford 
edition of the Decree, but a manuscript exemplar made 
up of the several Oxford MSS. The more correct text 
of the Oxford edition is contained in the two copies, 
which occur at the end of the Commentary p. 42 — 
45- and in this Postscript p. 7 and Q. 

He is not less mistaken, in all the particulars, which 
compose the following censure. After quoting the copy 
of the Bishop of St. Asaph's text, which is in litteris 
majusculis, he says: "This only shews that the learned 
" Prelate did not exactly know the value of his own 
" publication ; for most of his emendations are either 
" unnecessary y or tend to the same end, as those of the 
" old transcribers, that is, to eject every curious pro- 
" vincial peculiarity not readily understood, and to 
" fill its place with a word from the more known dia- 
" lects. Like other Editors, both ancient and modern, 
" he found it more easy to alter than to explain." Of 
the strange misapplication and extreme injustice of this 
censure the reader may easily judge from the collation 



13 



even of the second Oxford copy (Uteris minoribus) with 
the text of ed. Bas. 1570, and of Gronovius, in the pre- 
ceding pages of this Postscript, but still more from the 
copy in p. 9. It will be there seen that the Editor's 
express purpose was not to modernize the text, but to 
restore its archaisms, as in the following readings : 

Bas. vel. Gronov. Oxon. lit. min. 

Ti(j.o$£og B. Gr. Tijxoo'jog 

a.TlfA<X$?>St 
XUTCLpiTlV 

7rctp<xx7^o&eig 

SXT0L(J.SV 

&c. 



|txoX7rr y v B. 
0LTi[xa(rag by Gr. 
xfoapityv Gr. 
afj.<pisvvi>TOLi Gr. 
7roLpax7^rftsi§ Gr. 
sxTOLfxsiv Gr. 
&c. 



Bas. vel. Gron. 
swei^r! Gron. 
B. Gr. 
dixsrspav B. 
fxcoav Gr. 
Tcov vscov B. Gr. 
jxuS-aj B. Gr. 
aysMYj Gr. 
a7rp£7T7j Gr. 
sS-cov Gr. 
&c. 



Oxon. lit. maj. 
EIIEIAE 
HO 

HAMETEPAN 
MOAN 
TON NEON 
MYSO 
ArENNE 
AnPEnE 
ESON 

&c. 



In this majuscular copy the Editor has archaized the 
orthography throughout, not only by following the 



14 

Spartan form of P for %, of S for 0, AA for SA, &c. 
but by prefixing H to the aspirated vowels, and substitut- 
ing E and O for i£ w, which were not generally adopted 
by the Greeks till after the date of this Decree. But 
in his revisal of the text only one word (<£>a or <$>ai/) has 
been ejected from the text, as inexplicable, and that 
had been already ejected by Casaubon ; and not one 
" curious provincial peculiarity" has been exchanged 
for a word from a more known dialect, which had not 
been preferred by some preceding editor^ as will be 
shewn below. 

The ingenious Author had prepared his readers for 
the harshness and inaccuracy of the preceding censure, 
by the following petulant and groundless reproach. 
" We find in the Lacedemonian Decree against Ti- 
" motheus before mentioned AIAAKKE for EAI- 
" AAKSE, to which the Oxford Editor, with presump- 
" tuous and inauspicious hand, has changed it." * Who 
would suppose, that this confident language is in direct 
contradiction to the fact ? The Oxford Editor has not 
changed the text to any new reading, but has retained 
the original reading of Glareanus. ESi8af s is probably 
not the right reading ; but it was the reading of Gla- 
reanus's Manuscript, and of his edited text, as s8«8aerxs 
was of Casaubon's. Whether StSaxxs, or SiSaxxTj, or e$*- 
hoLXKs, be the right reading, will be inquired hereafter. 

1 proceed now from the Authors general censure 
to his application of it to particular passages of the 

* Analytical Essay, p. 23. 



15 

Decree, the text of which, he says, has been either un- 
necessarily changed, in the Oxford Edition, from com- 
mon terms to more ancient, or ignorantly, from an- 
cient terms to more common, that is, from curious pro- 
vincial peculiarities not easily understood to words of a 
more known dialect, the Editor finding it more easy to 
alter than explain*. And, first, as to the unnecessary 
changes. 

P. 133. " The change of to 2 is unnecessary ; for 
" though the Lacedemonians pronounced these two 
" dental aspirates in the same manner, it does not ap- 
" pear, from any genuine monument of their writing, 
" that they confounded them in orthography." This 
idiom the Author afterwards calls " the vicious pro- 
nunciation rather than the established orthography of 
the Laconians-^." How far these observations on this 
Laconian idiom are just, may be determined by its 
use, — by the occasions on which it was used, and the 
persons using it. The Lacedemonians used the § in- 
stead of @ on the most solemn occasions, in their oaths 
and public treaties. Oi AaxetioufjLQvioi roug Aio<rxouQovg 
opvuovrsSj vr t ray Xico, <poL<rw, avTi tou, px roog ®zovg%. 
Maittaire quotes an example of S*a> from a Spartan 
league, and of Xuog from a league between two Cretan 
tribes. He brings also the authority of Aristotle for 
this idiom of the Lacedemonians in their language of 
admiration, saying (rstog avr\p for Ssiog ernjp. Examples 
of this idiom in a variety of other words may be seen in 

* Analytical Essay, p. 133. f Ibid. p. 136. 

I Gregorius de Dialectis ed. Koen. p. 137- 



16 

Maittaire, Valckenaer, and Koen *. A;;olIonius Dys- 
colus says, 01 \lzv aXXot Awgisig t^odo-i to 6* AaxcovBgbi 
to S eig g jxsTa^aXXouo-i. But Eustathius (ad Odyss. A. 
p. 1702.) and the MS. Etymol. quoted by Koen ascribe 
this idiom generally to the Dorians, as Hesychius does 
to the Carystians, Cretans, Eleans and Paphians, who 
were Dorian nations. In conformity to the prevalent 
useof this idiom, Salmasius corrected TipoQsoo and pj^w, 
in this Decree, to Ti' k xocsoo and juu»o-a>, which, with one 
necessary correction, were adopted in the Oxford edi- 
tion. Of this idiom in a proper name the Etymol. MS. 
(p. 714.) has brought an example in 2io-u<po£ for Qsoa-o- 
<f>og.-\" But our ingenious Author says, there is " no 
trace" of this idiom in " (my written monument of the 
Laconians."^ I have quoted two written monuments, 
and the authority of Aristotle, for the idiom, in words, 
where a vicious pronunciation was least likely to have 
prevailed. But if we had merely the authority of the 
ancient grammarians, we could have had no more doubt 
of the idiom, than of the thirty dialects of the Arca- 
dians, Alexandrians, Macedonians, Corcyrasans, Co- 
rinthians, 8\C.^ of which we have nothing but relics in 
single words preserved by Hesychius and others. If 
the ancient grammarians had said as much of the Pe- 
lasgic Language, we might have had some reason for 

* Maittaire de Dial. p. 147. Valckenaer. Epist. ad. Rover, p. 
lxxiii. & ad Theoc. Adon. p. 277- sq. Koen ad Gregor. p. 137- 
f In Zwu^os is a double Laconism, in the use of 2 for © and of T 

for O, as in ovu/xa for oyo/xa. 

X P. 15, 16. § Maittaire de Dial. p. 267—282. 



17 

admitting a Pelasgic Dialect, and a Pelasgic Vau, if 
not a Pelasgic Digamma. 

P. 133. " The same may be said of the change of I 
" for the T in all those instances, where this last vowel 
" is usually employed ; for Eustathius tells us, that it 
" was the practice of the later Doric and iEolic to put 
" the I for the T: and the uniformity of it in this copy 
" of the Decree shews, that it was intentional.'' There 
has been no change from 1 to u. The u of the Oxford 
text is the reading of all the preceding editions. The 
text, which the ingenious Author here calls this copy, 
is not the text of any owe manuscript, but is a compo- 
site text collected by the Oxford Editor from the se- 
veral Oxford Manuscripts which he had collated. The 
argument, therefore, from its uniformity is a mere 
phantasy. The T^i^olivstoli, 7ro?up£op8jag, and apQiswiTai 
of some manuscripts, are KupawsTui, TroKu-^op^iaq, and 
apQizwuTOLi in the Selden MS. and also in the Bodleian 
in the last instance. Neither is this composite text 
uniform in the use of * for u. For it reads (not ittoXj- 
7To[jlsvov, but) u7ro'hi7ro^svou with all the MSS. In Ma- 
nuscripts which are not of great antiquity, the * and u 
may be easily mistaken for each other by transcribers, 
from similarity of form. The modern Greeks, too, 
gave the same sound to 73, j, and v 3 a vicious pronun- 
ciation, which has been the source of many errors in 
MSS. 

In the passage of Eustathius quoted in the Analy- 
tical Essay, there must be some error. For in the 
terms §\>q>po$, htypog, the common form is in 1 (SiQpog), 

c 



18 

the dialect in u (§u<ppog, if there ever was such a word), 
in which the change, as it is called, is from i to v, con- 
trary to the two examples, jaou<ra, /moica, and Twrou<ra, 
T07rroi<ra, in which the common term is in u, and 
the dialect in t, and the change therefore from u to i. 
The remark of Eustathius was probably intended to 
be confined to the diphthongs ov and o*. For it is 
well known that the modern Doric and iEolic used oi 
for ot>, as in poura for /xouo-a. In the ancient iEolic, 
and the Latin, it was MY£A. Joannes Grammaticus, 
indeed, quotes i-tyrfhov, i\j/o&£i/, and iwe%, as iEolic for 
y\f/>jXov, u\f/o&sy, and i>7reg. But a very accurate ob- 
server of these matters says : Nobis nondum licuerat 
ullum hujus permutationis istarum vocalium iEolicae 
exemplum observare*. 

P. 134. " The inserting the common aspirate too, 
" and not the Digamma, is improper : for both these 
" letters were dropt from the alphabet nearly at the 
" same time, and neither of them occur [occurs] in 
(( inscriptions of so late a date as this Decree, unless 
" indeed it be upon some coins of El is, Heraclea, and 
6f Tarentum, the age of which cannot be ascertained, 
" and the columns of Herodes Atticus, written in imi- 
" tation of the ancient orthography. To these, per- 
" haps, may be added the Heraclean tables, which 
" have both aspirates, but the age of them is uncer- 
■" tain." Here are exceptions of the Author's own 
admission, quite enough to destroy his objection. 
Mazochi, the Editor of the Heraclean tables, had no 

* Fischer. Aniniadv. ad Welier. Gramm. Vol. I. p. 102. 



19 

doubt (nullus igitur dubito) that the date of the tables 
was very little later than the year of Rome 430, and 
very little earlier than the 300th year before Christ *, 
which was nearly a century later than the date of the 
Lacedaemonian decree. The ingenious Author's chro- 
nological objection, therefore, to the insertion of the 
aspirate, H, and of the Digamma, in the Decree, is 
groundless. His objection too, that, as the Digamma 
was not admitted, therefore the aspirate ought not, is 
equally incorrect. For if the Digamma and the aspi- 
rate are inadmissible, they are so for very dissimilar 
reasons. Instead of the Digamma the Spartans made 
use of B. " What the Digamma was to other JEo- 
" Hans," says Toup, " that B was to the Spartans -j-." 
The admissibility of H is rendered doubtful by the 
aversion which the iEolians generally had to aspirated 
sounds. They were, eminently, called •tyi'hcDTixoi J. 
They said appss, vp-pes, for i}jxsi$, v(Aei§. Whether, 
therefore, the aspirate H be properly prefixed, in this 
Laconian Decree, to the words 6, ajotsTspav, &c. may 
be doubted, but not for the reasons assigned by our 
Author. 

P. 134. " It was customary to drop the aspirate 
" from the consonant, as has been shewn in the in- 
" stance of the Zanclean and Theban medals ; whence 

* Mazochii Tabulae Heracl. p. 134. 

f Toup. Emendationes, Vol. III. p. 474. 

X AAXoi psv 'EWimg ctcurvvovcn roc QuvrisyTa,' AtoAwj $£ ov$o&[xui$, Apol- 
lonius Dysc. See this passage and various Scholia on Aristophanes 
and Theocritus quoted by Maittaire (De Dial. p. 203). 

C 2 



i20 



• I have no doubt but that MITOS, which occurs (in 
" the genitive case) for MT0O2, is the true word, and 
" not MT20S, which the Editor would substitute, 
" though it has a different and incompatible meaning." 
Our Author has here involved himself in a confusion 
of terms, which he might have avoided if he had stated 
the three genitives [jura), jx'j&oi, /xuo-so£, instead of their 
nominatives juuros, ju,t>&0£, pixrog, the last being the 
JEolic nominative of jlukto) for \^w^fabuloe^ and also 
the common nominative of pvo-sog, sceleris. The usual 
reading of this passage of the Decree is jxuSyo, which 
Salmasius corrected to [xucra), according to the Spartan 
idiom. In one MS. it is written jxito), which our 
Author prefers. But pro* cannot be the right read- 
ing, for it is the iEolic genitive of juutos, citharcejides, 
a meaning quite foreign to the passage, whereas pvo-w 
has the same meaning with fxv^co, and cannot be con- 
founded with the genitive of fxua-og, scelus, which 
is [LiKTEog, or, Laconice, jut'jo-sog. Mirco, and not 
pjo-a>, is the incompatible term. Mtxrco, therefore, or 
jxuo-o, in the more ancient orthography, is undoubtedly 
the true reading. The error of t for u, in juuto>, from 
which neither MSS. nor inscriptions are exempt, is the 
same as was before noticed. 

P. 134. " The change of the T to A in IIOIKITAN 
" is right ; and also that of A to the O in the last syl- 
" lable of KANOTATOP ; but the substituting an E 
" for the A in the first is wrong." Here has been no 
change in the Oxford text from T to A. ITowiXav is 
the reading of almost every edition from the Princeps 



21 

editio to Chishull. Neither has there been any change 
from A to E ; for no edition has xolvotutoo. But in 
xBvoraroo there is a change peculiar to the Oxford edi- 
tion. KAIvoTarog of other editions is KEvoTarog in 
the Oxford text. This our Author says is wrong ; 
but he gives no reason, why it is wrong to substitute s 
for a or at. In the ancient dialects there are examples 
of both, as in t'J7ttov*s^zv for T07rro|xsS-a, $sp<Tog for §<xp- 
(rog. E, however, is not substituted in the Oxford 
text for a., but for ai. In Glareanus, Scaliger, Salma- 
sius, Chishull, it is KAhoraroo, for which the Oxford 
text has KEvoraroo. And thus for at we find e in vszw, 
AS-7]V5ou, &c. and in the termination of the Latin infi- 
nitives, as in esse for sivoli. In the word ^svog we ap- 
pear to have some evidence, that xaivog was anciently 
written xsvog. For i*zvog, peregrinns, novus, before the 
invention of the double letters, was written cxsvoc, as 
rrxKpog for %i<pog. The Oxford Editor's text has also the 
authority of the Magdalen MS. which has xsvotoltoq. 

P. 134. " ATIMASAE seems to be the proper form^ 
" and not ATIMASAEI, the sense requiring a past 
" imperfect, rather than a present, and the omission 
tC of the augment being common to Homer, Hesiod, 
" and Herodotus." Poets and Ionic writers are not 
very legitimate authorities for the language of an JEo- 
lic Senatus consultum. But leaving this to be de- 
cided by our Author, as a question of taste, we may 
contend, on stronger grounds, that a past imperfect 
tense is here wholly out of place ; the offence, against 
which this Decree was directed, being perfect and pre- 



22 

sent at the time of the Decree. " Timotheus has dis- 
honoured, and does dishonour, the ancient music." 
This sense of the passage is determined by the accom- 
panying present tenses, 7rapoLyivopsvoq, a7ro<rTps$o[ASvoq, 
euraycov, T^u^onusrai, a^ievuurou. The Doric form of 
ar»/xa^ft> is ar;px<r&o, the Laconian arjjxaSSo). Chis- 
hull reads an^aa-Ssi, Salmasius an^aa-hri. Valcke- 
naer, in a passage to be quoted under the next remark, 
expresses his surprise that Salmasius should not have 
adopted the Laconian form in A A. In his younger 
days, when he wrote his Epistola ad Roverum, he 
read artjaadSs, but, in his later and more elaborate 
notes on Theocritus, he has preferred the present 
form, GtrtjuiaSSst^. 

P. 134. " KI0APISIN, or KI0APIK2IN, is also 
" more consistent with the roughness of the dialect, 
" than KISAPITIN, given by the Editor, or KITA- 
u PITIN, which one MS has, and which is less ob- 
jectionable." Valckenaer thought very differently. 
He preferred the Laconian form in % to the common 
form in 0, xi%a.pi{;iv to xtSap^iu. " Formae Laco- 
" nicae in a$$a) & Mco cum essent ex Aristophane 
" notse, mirum est, cur non ar^a^s posuerit Sal- 
" masius in Lacedaemoniorum Senatus consulto, qui 
" (de Hellen. p. 82) solus in illo restituerat tolu kktol- 
" pi{;W nam xiQapunv scripserat Leopardus, Emend. 
" viii. c. xiv. et Scaliger ad Manil. p. 426. mbap^tv 
Casaubon, Bullialdus, et Edm. Chishull."*}* 

* Ad Theoc. Adoniaz. p. 276. 
f Epistola ad Roverum, p. lxxvii. 



23 

P. 136. " The change of IIAPAKAE0EIS to IIA- 

44 PAKAA0EIP may be right so far as substituting 
" the E for A ; but terminating words of this class in 
" P is unjustified by authority, and inconsistent with 
" analogy, and certainly inadmissible in any dialect." 
The Author, if I mistake not, is neither correct in his 
concession, nor in his objection. Before the invention 
of the long vowels, a and g were used for 73, but not in- 
discriminately. Such words as ttoisco, xaT^sco, were 
formed thus : 7roieco, 7rois(rco, 7rs7roiexa., 7rs7roi£p5», £7rot- 
sSsv, 7rois%eig (not STroia&ev, 7roio&sig, xKo&eig, &c.), as 
psraxwso-oLi, xiuscrig, &c. of which examples may be 
seen in Scaliger and Salmasius, quoted by Maittaire*. 
I prefer, therefore, 7rotpax%s^£ig to 7rapa.xKa§eig. But 
what must we say to the Laconian termination in P, 
against which, in words of this class, the Author has 
pronounced the most exclusive reprehension ? So de- 
cided and comprehensive a sentence should not have 
been left to gratuitous assertion, but should have been 
substantiated from the express judgement of some an- 
cient grammarian, or from the natural incompatibility 
of the letter with this class of words, in proof that 
they are excluded from the general observation of the 
ancients, namely, that the iEolians in general, but 
especially the Lacedaemonians, Eretrians, and Eleans, 
used the P for § at the end, and some of them also 
in the middle, of words. It is a question worth in- 
vestigating, as it may serve to explain the origin of 
some grammatical forms in Latin as well as in Greek. 

* De Dialectis, p. 165. 



24 

That the class of' words, to which TrapaxX-rftsis be- 
longs, is not, generally, excluded from this idiom, is 
evident from this very Decree, in which we have the 
participles, 7rapoLywo[j*svoo, a7ro<TTp£<popevoo, rera^Bva^, 
(j\)n(TTOL\k,zvoQ, We have here the passive and middle 
species of this class, of time past and present ; and 
Hesychius has preserved two participles of the active 
species ; avag for amg, which he explains by tjxovo-ol * 
(from auw, the original of Batvo), as evco is of Venio), 
and ajt/,7nTTag for afx(pi(rrag, which is rendered by 
7rapaTarTO]ui£V73. We have, then, participles active, 
passive, and middle, of time present, past, and in- 
definite active, which end in P. Can there be any 
thing in the nature of the first aorist passive, which 
could unfit it for the use of this favourite letter of the 
Spartans ? and render it, so terminated, " inadmissible 
in any dialect ?" The remark which contains this 
most exclusive negative, is couched in the high lan- 
guage of amplification, but not, therefore, more likely 
to be true. It is incapable of proof. Indeed all dia- 
lects are out of the question but one, the JEolic and 
its several species, Laconian, Eretrian, &c. 

The Latin is one of its species *f~ ; but the Latin has 
no aorist: our Author's negative cannot, therefore, be 
proved from the Latin. It will not, however, be 

* The termination in a ? , like puKct^, was applicable to both genders. 

t The Crotoniatae, Locrenses, Campani, Brutii, Sabini, Sam • 
nites, and Tarentini, were colonies from Lacedeemon. See Meursii 
Miscell. Lacon. Lib. 1. c. vii. The Roman manners, and language, 
partook much of the Spartan character. 



25 

foreign to our purpose to trace its relation to the 
JEolic, in this particular idiom, by the termination of 
participial nouns in R. For all such nouns as factor, 
domitor, captor, pastor, &c. I conceive to have been 
participial forms of the past time, and candor, ardor, 
dolor, &c. of the present. The passive participles 
f actus, domitus, &c. were anciently written factos, 
domitos, and, iEolice, factor, domitor. Though these 
are now called passive forms, they had anciently an 
active as well as passive signification, as many have at 
present, such as 7rs7roirj^cii, SsSco pr^xou, &c. There is a 
large list of verbal nouns which are obviously passive 
participial forms, such asfexus, nexus, sumptus, mor- 
sus, &c* Even the simplest of our apprehensions 
were thus denominated : auditus, visus, tactus, odo~ 
ratus, gustus, and that which comprehends them all, 
sensus, from which we have auditor, visor, with the 
iEolic R, and so from spectatus, or spectatos, spec- 
tator. 

By the same analogy the Greek verbal nouns woi- 
r\Tf\g, axpoarrig, supzrr^g, ktkttt^, xpiryg, &c. are derived 
from passive forms in their active signification, and are 
sometimes terminated in %, sometimes in P, and some- 
times in both, as }xoL-£f\Tf\g and p^srag. 

* Sapientia, prudentia, constantia, consequentia, &c. are also par- 
ticipial forms. By a remarkable deflection from their original 
form, they became singular feminine nouns from neuter participles 
plural ; and with some reason, wisdom, prudence, constancy, not 
consisting of single actions, or qualities, but of results and habits 
accumulated and confirmed by experience. 



26 

As agents and actions derived their signification from 
the past time, so qualities and permanent properties 
were denominated from the present; as candor, ardor, 
dolor, nitor, &c. By the same analogy, from am, aua>, 
clamo, came the Laconian aficoq clamor; as uhcog aqua, 
does from vm, uhco, from whence also sudor. — But, to 
return to the Lacedaemonian Decree, and to Mr. 
Knight's remarks. We proceed now from his charge of 
unnecessary alterations from common terms to more 
ancient, to that of changes ignorantly made from an- 
cient terms to more common. That the Editor, whose 
express purpose it was to restore the archaisms of his 
text, should nevertheless have " ejected every curious 
provincial particularity ', not easily understood" or that 
his emendations should have had such a tendency, is 
incredible. But we will see, how Mr. Knight has veri- 
fied his assertion. 

P. 134. "Aia^ser^forAIASKEINorAIASKEIAN, 
is too violent an alteration." Neither $ioL<rxeiv nor &a- 
g-ksiolv is the reading of any edition of the Decree. 
AioLiqsG-w should rather be compared with Siolo-tolo-w, 
which is the reading of the princeps editio, and of Ca- 
saubon. Leopardus and Salmasius read hs<nv, Scali- 
ger hxHTxhsiav . 

P. 1 3 5 . "IIOITAN the Editor has changed to IIOION, 
" or toidm" TLoitolv is not the reading of any edition ; 
and of but one MS. Of course here has been no 
change from Toirau, but from ttoiolv, the reading of the 
princeps editio, into notcou and xoiov. Haiwv is also the 
reading of Scaliger, Casaubon, and Chishull. 



27 

P. 135* "I prefer the reading of the Manuscripts, 
" IIO IT AN, considered, as the accusative feminine of 
u the participle aorist, contracted, after the Doric man- 
ci ner, from 7roirj<ra(rai/, to 7roj<rai/, and by a change of 2 
i( to T, ttoitolv* Uoirav, which the author calls a Do- 
ric contraction for n-onja-ac-aj/, is, I believe, without 
analogy or example. The third plural of aorist verbs 
is sometimes contracted from — oL<rav to av, but never, 
I think, the singular feminine of the aorist participle. 

P. 135. " Aiftaxxe in the MSS. is right, as before 
" observed. The Editor's alteration to sStSa^s being the 
" same as a change of 07]xs, or ficoxe, in Homer and 
" Hesiod would be to E0HK2E or EAGKSE." 
Ai^axxs maybe the Manuscript orthography for h$0Lxxv\, 
(as Qtyews, and cnrps7rs in the same MSS. is for aysvur} 
and oLTpsTri,) which is an T^olic form of Stiaxxsi: or it 
may be a corruption of stiihaxxs, which I am more 
inclined to think. A&a.xxr), however, is the reading 
of Salmasius, and is quoted by Maittaire as an example 
of iEolism for h&avxsi. There are traces of §&axxr) 
in Glareanus's AIAAXHv. That the Oxford Editor 
did not alter S&axxs to sSi$a£s, but retained £%i$a§s 
from Glareanus, has been before noticed. If we could 
suppose d&axxe to be the unaugmented form, Homer 
and Hesiod would not be proper authorities for such a 
form in a prose Senatus Consultum. Besides, a change 
from hihotxxs to s$&at;e, from one legitimate form to 
another, would have been not at all similar to chang- 
ing fyxe and efiwxs to s^xas and ebcoxos, which are 



28 



merely imaginary forms adopted by Lennep* to ac- 
count for the anomalous aorists eG^aa and ebwxa. 

P. 135. " The syllable 4>A or <I>AN, which the Edi- 
" tor rejects as useless and inexplicable, relates either 
" to the Senate, who enacted, or to the Senator, who 
" moved the Decree." But as the Author does not 
explain to which it relates, nor how it grammatically 
relates to either, it must be considered, in its present 
state, as unexplained and inexplicable. It is not in 
the text of the princeps editio ; nor in the edition of 
Casaubon. The Oxford Editor is therefore not with- 
out authority for the omission. Some word of con- 
nection or inference, seems to be wanting. Scaliger 
has supplied (from MSS. as it seems) $av. Other 
MSS. have $a or $ol%. Chishuli has (perhaps from 
conjecture) 7ra, which he translates utique. The text 
of the princeps editio shews the kind of word, which 
is wanted. Instead of 8*8axj«j. Aefioffiai Kepi toutcou — 
Glareanus has there given, — 8<Sa^v sliZa^s. EITA 
7repi tovtgm x. r. X. E*Ta is a term of inference^ like 
ow and youv. As EITA appears in no other MS. but 
Glareanus's, it was probably a gloss of the term oblite- 
rated, which I am inclined to think was ycov, afterwards 
corrupted into <$>av. Amongst the Doric words used 
by Herodotus, Maittaire mentions mu and ycou for ovu 
and youv. With this reading the passage will stand 
thus : AsSop^ai ycou 7rspi tqutwu. 

* Lennep. de Analog, p. 73. ed. Scheid. 

f Devarius de Particulis, p. 132. ed. Lips. 1793- 



29 



P. 135. " MepJ/ao-^ai and £7rauayxoL(rou given by the 
" Editor are likewise wrong, the forms ^six-^olttoh and 
u sttolvolxoltcu in the MS n being more consistent with 
" the dialect, which transformed the 2 into T, as well 
" as dropt the consonant." Mspf/ottf-^ai is the reading 
given by Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, andChishull; 
and ava.yxa(TQt,i or s7ravayxoL<rai, or £7ravoz.i>xat*oLi, by the 
same learned men. Our ingenious author says that 
" the dialect transformed the S into T." It did, but 
not indiscriminately, nor on all occasions. The very 
terms before us are generally examples of a different 
idiom. In the futures and aorists of verbs and par- 
ticiples the JEolic changed % into H, and therefore in 
such words as S7ravayxaa-ai they said eiravayxa^m, or 
£7ramvxa{;oLi, as Chishull reads it. Our author will, I 
believe, find it difficult to produce a single adequate 
authority in support of [as^olttoli or swavaxarai. In 
Valckenaer's Epist. ad Roverum, p. 65, are several in- 
stances of verbs in aoSa.1, and uniting both forms in 
3 and §0, as ^ixaL^cur^ai, oTrcopi^aa-^ai, xoiroL^a^ai, 

P. 135, 136\ '? Though the word EIIANAKATAI 

a does not occur elsewhere, in the same form, we have 
" other words of the same extraction and signification, 
'* as axog. care, and amxoug, carefully ; which, as Eusta- 
" thius observes, are from the same root as awl; and 
" ama-a-co, words which do not imply, in Homer, 
" the office and power of a king, in the present sense, 
" but merely a curator, or superintendant? This 
remark is quite in unison with the spirit of that un- 



30 

kingly period, at the commencement of which it was 
published. In the year 1791 the King of France was 
become the prisoner of his people ; and in the follow- 
ing year Royalty was abolished by the National Con- 
vention. It may be always useful to keep in mind the 
false assumptions on which revolutionary principles 
rested. We are here told, that in Homer ava| does 
not imply the office and power of a King in the 
present sense, but merely a curator or super intendant . 
No proof is brought from Homer; but an appeal is 
made to Eustathius; and, as in these cases frequently 
happens, the words quoted are in contradiction to the 
author's assertion. Eustathius says, Avaxras sxaXouu 
roug fioLCihsag o\ 7raXatot &ta to avoLxcog, 7370UV e7njU.sAa>£, 
s X eiv t(du TnOTETArMENGN, The ancients called 
kings avoLKTsg, on account of the care, which they had 
of their subjects. The term v7roTsray^svoi is neces- 
sary to the meaning of auaxrsg, and implies not merely 
subjection in one party, but dominion in the other. 
Ava§ in Homer never means less than dominus. Te- 
lemachus says to Antinous, ocvat; so-opai ypsrspoio 01x010, 
/ will be the sovereign of my house, or family. 
(Odyss. a. 397.) In this sense avaxrEg and §p.a)eg, 
domini and servi, are opposed to each other. (Odyss. 
g. 320.) Family dominion implied all the authority 
belonging to a King, as the sole Governor, or Monarch, 
of his people, not as a mere curator or swperintendant , 
in subordination to some Head. In this sovereign 
sense the term was applied to the Gods. In the Odys- 
se y (*"• 387.) the kingdom of Ithaca is called Telema- 



31 

chu^s by inheritance, iroLTpcoia. But nothing can mark 
more strongly Homer's anti-democratic principles, 
than his language in the second book of the Iliad, in 
which he describes the office and authority of kings, 
as derived from Jupiter, and their power, as heredi- 
tary ; and condemns the government of the many. 

Oux aya&ov TrohuxoipcLVivf slg xoipavog zcttlo, 
E*£ fioLO-fasvg, to shcoxs Kpovou ircug ayxuTiO^TSco 
XxrjTrpov t rfis Sepia-rag, ha. <n£*civ £/xj3ao"iXsinr] * 

SufAog 8e psyag e<rri SiOTpsQsw fiouriXriwV 
Ti/A7] 8' ex Aiog sen, <£*Asi $s I ^tistol Zevg.^f 

The following passage shews not only the heredi- 
tary descent of Agamemnon's power, but his sove- 
reign authority over Argos, and the adjacent islands. ;£ 

ava. xpeicov Ayaju.£juiva>v 

E<tt7], (rxr^rpou e%a)V' to jxsv 'H^outrrog naps tsv^cuv* 
'H&OLHTTog psv Scoxe Aii fcpovitovi amxrr 
AoTag apa Zsvg Stoxe faoLKTopa* ApysitpovTj}' 
'Kp^eiag Ss ava§ btvxsv UeXo7ri 7rA7j£tfT7ra>* 
Aurap 6 olvts TLeKo-ty fitvx' Arpe'i, 7roi[LSVi Xaa»y° 
Arps'jg §s ^vr^(TXQiV sXits xoXvap vj @ve<rry 
Avtolo 6 aurs 0W6O-T Ayajxsjmvovi %enre $opv\mi, 
IIoXXy]<rt u^ctokti xoli Apye'i ttolvti olvolvo'siu. § 

* Iliad. B. v. 204. f Ibid. v. 196. 

X Those interesting Islands, which are now under the protection 
of Great Britain. 
§ Iliad. B. v. 100. 



32 

Plutarch therefore, or whoever was the Author of 
the treatise Trepi rr\g 'O^pou 7ron)0-sa)£, might well sav 
of Homer, rr\v [usv fiourfceiav §i oK^g rr t g 7roirp£a)g 
(jvo^ol^wv xai syxcoixia^cov. His descriptions and epi- 
thets of Kings, his SioTps&scov flour iX7ja>v, and bsiwv 
fioxrforjwu, give an impression of the kingly office and 
power not inferior to their modern character, and very 
different from our Author's mere curators and super- 
intendants. 

Ami; therefore I conceive to be not from ava and 
aV<ro-ft), nor from avaxwg s^eiv, nor even from avw s%sw 
ra§ w, but from avw, sursum eo, ascendo, and to be 
the same with avag, qui sursum ivit, evectus est, as 
opvit; is the same with opvig, %Aa§ with xkag, ?uS-a§ 
with X&ag, pi>x£ with pvag, &c. Hesychius has pre- 
served the Laconian form of avag in ai/ag, from avco in 
its uncompounded sense of rjxa). From avag comes 
the feminine avoxra, ai/a<r<ra. 

P. 13G. " Nstov in the Manuscripts is only wrong 
" in the first letter, which should be a B, Bstov, or (as 
" in the Etymologicum magnum) Bsttov, the regular 
" Laconian form of Fs&ov." Bsttov has no relation 
whatever to Fs&ov. The former is the neuter nomina- 
tive for Bso-tov, * Vestis ; the latter, the genitive for 
rfrtov, morum, the Laconian form of which is Bsoyov, 
or Bs<rov, B being their substitute for the Digamma. 

P. 136. " Eo-ov, substituted by the Editor, is taken 
u from a note to Hesychius, who gives Bscrov, as Laco- 

* Bforov, to IpxTw. Etymol. Mag. 



33 

* c nian for sQog, and Ilacrov for 7ro&o£." Bsorov could 
" not be Laconian for s$og, nor 7rcx.(rou for 7ra§og, 
because, though they used % for N, they never reversed 
this idiom. IWov and 7ra<rov were corruptions of $eo-o% 
and 7ra<ro%. And so they are corrected by Valckenaer 
ad Theoc. Adoniaz. p. 282. In this Decree, for pj 
xolKcov eScov we should read p? xolXwv $z<ra>v. 

P. 136. Note. " I have before observed the double 
u power of this word, similar to that of habit in our 
" own language." The significations of s§og and zoSrjg, 
or s<r§og, and of their Laconian forms fisa-og and fiea-rov, 
QsTTov, never reciprocate. EB-o$ never signifies vestis, 
nor soSyg consuetudo, mos. The Latin Habitus, as 
well as the English, derives its ambiguous meaning 
from a very different class of associations, like its rela- 
tive e%ig in Greek. 

P. 136. u TotpoipsToii in the manuscript is right, 
and not raparrsrai, given by the Editor." TAPAT- 
TETAI (or roLpoLrrrirai litteris minoribus,) is given 
not by the Oxford Editor alone, but by Glareanus, in 
the princeps editio, by Scaliger, Casaubon, and Gro- 
novius. 

P. 136. a It (rapapsrai) being the Laconian form 
u of the second Aorist subjunctive middle, and not 
" the present of the subjunctive passive. In common 
" Greek it would be TocpaarriTOLi, or roLparrirai, from 
" rapaa-a-a) or rapctTTo)" In what new system of Pa- 
laeography, or thesaurus of " unlicensed Greek," the 
Author found Tapaa-rjrai to be the 2d. aorist of rapaa-cra), 
I cannot conjecture. Whether the characteristic of 

D 



34 

the present be in £2 or TT, the second aorist does 
not vary with such difference, but has in either case T 
for its characteristic, and not 2t or T. TapayrjTai, 
therefore, is its legitimate form, in common Greek, 
and not rapoia-rjTai or raparrirai. Much less could 
Tapapzrai be the 2d. aorist of rapa(r<ra>.* But Mr. 
Knight says, that rapapsrai is " the Laconian form of 
" the second Aorist," that is, the Laconian form of a 
word which is not Greek (rapaa-rirai), or of a word 
which is Greek (rapoLyyroLi), but which will not admit 
the Laconism in the beginning, the middle, or the 
end of it. 

I have now examined both of our Author's charges 
of unnecessary and ignorant alteration, and find the 
former very ill supported, and the latter wholly unve- 
rified. Where then should fall the imputation, which 
he brought against the Oxford Editor, of ignorance 
and presumption ? 



The reader, who has followed me thus far in the 
examination of that portion of the ANALYTICAL 
ESSAY, which contains the Author's remarks on the 
Oxford edition of the Decretum Lacedoemoniorum 
contra Timotheum, if he has also read the MISCEL- 
LANEA CRITICA of Dawes, will, I think, be of 
opinion, that a comparison of the former with the lat- 

* Instead of raga-Trwa* Salmasius reads ta$ a^ra^ virtutis, of 
which an account will be given in the following pages. 



35 

rer, can detract nothing from the critical authority of 
Dawes, nor give any weight to arbitrary innovations 
on the established language of antiquity. 1 conclude 
therefore, as before, that the iEolic Digamma ought 
not to be called Pelasgic, because it was never so 
called by the Ancients, — because a generic term cannot 
be applied to a particular dialect: because its ancient 
name was Vau, and not Digamma; — and because the 
term, Digamma, was not in the primitive Greek al- 
phabet, but is, comparatively, a modern term. 

Mr. Knight justly observes, that the Lacedaemonian 
Decree is " a very important monument of antiquity,"* 
though he seems to have very incorrectly studied its 
idioms, and character, and, of course, very imperfectly 
appreciated its value. It is important from its connec- 
tion not only with the ancient language of Sparta, but 
with her music and manners and religious institutions. 
As the ingenious Author was desirous of " enlivening 
the dryness of grammatical disquisition," he might have 
done so from the connection, which this Decree has 
with many interesting subjects, much more acceptably 
to his Christian readers, than by the levity and pro- 
faneness of his caricature of the great Patriarch of the 
Deluge. -f- 

Mr. Knight confined his view to the grammatical 
character of the Decree, yet the consideration of the 
Spartan Music, in its national character, and the his- 
tory of the printed text of the Decree from the end of 

* Analytical Essay, p. 15. Note. f- Ibid. p. 61. Note. 

D 2 



ob 

the fifteenth century to the latter half of the eigh- 
teenth, are necessary for determining the right reading 
and meaning of the Decree, and for estimating the 
merits of the Oxford Edition. His imperfect know- 
ledge of the preceding editions of the Decree, and even 
of that which he. undertook to censure, I have already 
noticed. It is also fully exemplified in the following 
short passage. Of the Lacedaemonian use of P for £ 
" we have a curious example in the Decree against Ti- 
" motheus, the Milesian Musician, preserved by Boe- 
" thius, in his treatise on Music, and more correctly 
(( republished from a Manuscript at Oxford, in the 
ec year 1777'"* ^ n this most extraordinary literary 
notice of the Decree, — from Boethius to the Bishop of 
St. Asaph, — there are not less than twelve centuries 
sunk. It was preserved in the sixth century, and re- 
published in the eighteenth ! Whether it was ever pub- 
lished since the origin of printing, before the Oxford 
republication, we are not here informed. This how- 
ever is a mere omission. But when we are told, it was 
" republished from a Manuscript," the information is 
very erroneous. The Oxford Editor collated not less 
than^e Manuscripts, the Bodleian, and the Selden, 
the Magdalen, Corpus, and Balliol MSS. Again we 
are told, that it was more correctly republished from a 
manuscript at Oxford. What Mr. Knight calls a ma- 
nuscript, was a composite exemplar taken from the 
five MSS. The Editor expressly says, that there was 

* P. 15. 



37 

not one of the Oxford MSS. which was not equally cor- 
rupt With the printed copies: " Nee profecto aflirmare 
" ausim it Hum quidem e Codicibus Oxoniensibus ex- 
" tare, qui non ccque corruptus sit, ac ii, quos antehac 
(: excudi curaverunt viri literati." 

Of the Oxford Editor Mr. Knight says, " Like 
" other Editors, both ancient and modern, he found it 
" more easy to alter than explain." That it is often 
more easy to alter than explain, (though it must be ad- 
mitted,) our author has not proved from the Oxford 
Edition. But I will here exemplify it from his own 
Essay,* by his alteration of a passage of Homer, where 
Antinous says to the other suitors of Penelope, in reply 
to their objection to his proposal of putting Telema- 
chus to death : 

Et V vpiv bye [xv^og aQavfiavsi, AAAA $otAso"S-s 
Avtov rs %cosiv, xat s^siu 7roirqco'ia ttclvtol -|~. 

On this passage Mr. Knight observes, " though the 
u elision of T removes the metrical difficulty, the greater 
i( difficulty still remains; for the word aXXa, as Clarke 
u has observed, is totally incompatible with the sense, 
" which requires a conjunctive instead of a disjunctive. 
" I would therefore read, 

Ei h' UjUUV 67s fXU^Og OL$0LV§OLV£l, HAE KAI OCVTOV 

BouXso-^e £a)£tv." 

In the common reading of this passage, and its ma- 
nuscript variation^ there is more than enough to deter 

* Analytical Essay, p. 41. f Odyss tt. 387- 



38 

from so violent an alteration. In the first place we 
have manuscript authority for reading BOAE20E in- 
stead of 0ouXs(r^s, by which we not only restore the 
metre, but recover, if not " a curious provincial peculi- 
arity," at least a curious archaism. In the next place 
the apparent difficulty of the term AAAA gives it an 
advantage over the correction tj$s xcu. For if 7jSe xai 
had been the original reading, no probable reason 
could be given, why it should have been changed to 
a?^Xa. But if olXKol was the original, the same diffi- 
culty which offends Mr. Knight, would have induced 
a glossator to substitute 7jSs xai. It is a difficulty that 
requires explanation rather than alteration. We are 
told indeed on the authority of Dr. Clarke, that aAXa 
is totally incompatible with the sense. Dr. Clarke is 
not quite so positive. He says " aXXa hoc in loco non 
recte se habere." But the sense, it is said, requires a 
conjunctive instead of a disjunctive. Let us examine 
the passage. Here are evidently two contrary propo- 
sitions, one to kill Telemachus, the other to save 
his life. And contrary propositions certainly admit a 
disjunctive particle. If it were written fyuv bye [a<J&oc 
oux avbavsi, aXXa ftoKE<r$re 3 there could be no difficulty 
in the term aXXa. And as afyav^avzi involves oux in its 
negative a, and therefore has the same meaning as ovx 
avhoLvsi, the difficulty is not in the sense, but in the 
construction. And as all MSS. concur in the reading 
of cCKka, the right conclusion seems to be, that the in- 
volved negative may have, at least in the language of 
poetry, the same construction, as the expressed. If 



39 

aAXa' $oA?<rS-s aurov Te gwsiv were in one MS. and rfie 
xoti olvtou ftouXscr'&e gcusiv in another, the former, by a 
common canon of criticism, would be the preferable 
reading, on account of its apparent difficulty and its 
archaism. 

A want of explanation has, in another passage of the 
Analytical Essay*, led Mr. Knight into a correction of 
a different kind. Of the word a-axri in Herodotus ^ he 
says * V r alckenaer would make a-wo-i an abbreviation of 
" crrftouci, but improperly ; for it is the regular Ionic 
" contraction of 20FOTSI and SOFONSI." To 
charge Valckenaer with a grammatical error is an ha- 
zardous experiment, and, at all times, likely to recoil 
on the animadverter. His words are: " Hue respiciens 
Etymologus, p. 7 10. 41. c HpooVn>£, inquit, tod coo to 
rpirov T(ov 7r7^rftuvTix(»v %w(Tiv, olvti tod <r7ftou(rw. Repe- 
riuntur et veoa-iv olvti tod vrfioD<rw, & alia hujus generis 
apud Atticos plurima." Here is not a word said of ab- 
breviation. The Etymologist by olvti tod (rrftovo-iv 
does not mean that a-wa-iv is an abbreviation of <rrfrov- 
(TiVy but merely that it is used instead of the common 
term cyftova-iv. As he says elsewhere, siaSa olvti tod 
*ff<£f£: not that sioSol was an abbreviation of y!;eig, but 
that the former was an ancient or poetical form, used 
by Homer, instead of the latter, the common term. 
The Etymologist indeed expressly says, that %co<n is 
(not an abbreviation of trrfroua-iv, but) the third plural 
of Sft>. When we meet with such misconstructions and 

* P. 104. f Lib. I. p. 95. ed. Wesseling. 



40 

incorrectness, in an Analytical Essay on the Greek 
Alphabet, how can the Author evade his own censure 
of Four m on t : u Nothing exposes ignorance so effec- 
" tually, as an unsuccessful attempt at scientific ac- 
" curacy*." 

When he says, that the Oxford Editor found it more 
" easy to alter than explain/' he forgets that he him- 
self has explained nothing in the Decree; and that the 
Oxford Editor has the merit of having solved a diffi- 
culty in a very important word, smppoviog, which, from 
its apparent inconsistency with the context, and with 
the express purpose of the Decree, Dr. Burney says, 
some translators had omitted^. Timotheus was cen- 
sured and punished for corrupting the simplicity of 
the ancient music, and for substituting the chromatic 
melody instead of the enharmonic. But in the usual 
technical sense of the word, the chromatic was more 
ancient and more simple than the enharmonic, which 
was the last in the historical order of the three musical 
species, Diatonic, Chromatic, Enharmonic, and was 
considered as the highest stage of musical refinement. 
Where, then, was the offence in substituting what w T as, 
comparatively, simple instead of that which was highly 
complex and artificial ? Dr. Burney, who saw the dif- 
ficulty, in great measure removed it, by suggesting, 
that there must have been two species of enharmonic, 
ancient and modern; and that the enharmonic, for 
which Timotheus substituted the chromatic, was the 

* P. 118. | Burney's Hist, of Music, Vol. I. p. 45. and 411. 



41 

ancient species. To support this suggestion, nothing 
was wanting hut the aid of grammatical explication. 
The Oxford Editor has applied this remedy ; and has 
shewn, that, in its primary meaning, evappovwg is equi- 
valent to continuus, and is therefore opposed to what 
is discontinuum, and fr actum, which was the character 
of the dithyrambic poetry, to which the later music 
owed its origin. Plutarch calls the new music xoltsol- 
yuia., and Quintilian, modis fracta. The Editor has 
also illustrated the meaning of evappoviogby its opposite, 
s^ap^ouiog. In the sense of continuus, svap^xoviog is the 
same as SiaTovog, the term by which the simplest of 
the three species w 7 as denominated. In the Decree 
rera^suog (which the Editor has explained by rpr Aw- 
l*.zvog from Hesychius) is the term which corresponds 
with svappoviog, and, in its origin, is the relative of 
hioLTovog. But though svapfAoviog in this sense was ap- 
plied to the ancient music, and opposed to the varied, 
multiplied, and antistrophic character of the new, yet 
it became afterwards the appropriate term of the latter 
music, not by any contradiction in the term, but by 
the force of one of its most general significations. 
'Ap^ovia, a derivative of appo^ou, or apco, apto, has its 
meaning from aptitude and consonance. JLvappoviog 
therefore was applied to both species, as expressive of 
musical harmony, but ceased to designate the old 
music, when it became eminently appropriated to the 
new, and was replaced by another term, ^larovog, more 
specially significant of its regularity and simplicity. 



42 

Aibaxxs, h&otxxr), t)&0L(rxei, shiha^e, and sdi6a(rxe are 
various readings of that passage of the Decree, which 
contains the second charge against Timotheus. The 
choice of the reading depends on the meaning which 
we attach to the passage, whether it is to be understood 
in a moral or dramatic sense. AiSacrxeiv means both 
moral instruction, and dramatic representation. Of 
the former meaning no example can be necessary. Of 
the latter a few will be sufficient. Apiwu ^^ypap.|3ov 
7rpa)Tog a^pa)7r(ou EAIAAHEN. Dion. Chrysost. p. 
455- from Herodotus, who describes the invention of 
Arion more fully: §&'jpa.ixfiov, Trpcorov av^ptvTraw twu 
ypsig i§[j*zy, 7roiYi<ravTOL ts xai ovojxao-avTa xoli AIAA- 
3ANTA sv Kopw^tp. L. I. §. 23. " the first who com- 
posed, and named, and publicly recited, the dithyram- 
bic poem." Tourov tov %opov svixcou fxev AaxeooLifj.ovioi, 
EAIAASKE §s Asayv&as, (that is, Leonidas was the 
Xopyyos?) by a metaphor taken from the stage *. (Max- 
imusTyrius Dissert. 37. §. 6\) To (rarupixov ^pa^anou 
EAIAASE. (Athenaeus Deipnos.) AIAASAS rov 
HuTiuriv, xai vixrjG-ag. Lucian. Vol. III. p. 22J. The 
expression is followed by the Latin writers. Vel qui 
praetextas, vel qui docuere togatas. (Horat. Art. Poet.) 
Cum Orestem fabulam doceret Euripides. (Cicero 
Tusc. L. iv.) Docere Orestem, docere Pytinen, docere 
Semeles partus, are all of the same import, and mean 
edere, exhibere, or scribere fabulam. If $&a<rxsw were 

* So Euripides in his Phoenissae : Q voXvpoxSoc Ap-/j? — x&^ov ayai/Xo- 

txtqv Trgoxogsvsu;. 



43 

used here in the sense ot moral instruction, it might be 
in the present tense. For though the action was past, 
the consequences were present: " he describes to youth 
the religion of their country, not as he ought to do ;"* 
by his improper descriptions he caricatures, and vili- 
fies, and degrades it. In this sense the reading should 
be otiaxxsi or SiSajooj. But if it refer only to the past 
recital, as the context appears to require, then either 
Glareanus's s$i%a{;s, or Casaubon's sSjoWxs, or rather 
its Laconian form, s^^axxs-f-, would be the preferable 
reading. Being invited to the musical contests at the 
festival of Eleusinian Ceres, he composed a poem un- 
suited to the occasion; for he represented to our youth 
the pains of Semele, at the birth of Bacchus, very un- 
becomingly, rao yao tuq S^u-sAag ft>Stvag oux svoixa rcoq 
vscoc sfttiaxxs. 

The conclusion of the Decree contains a declaration 
of the purpose which the Spartan Senate had in view 
in the censure of Timotheus, ending with these words, 
[xr l7 roT£ TAPATTHTAI axsog AHINGN, as it is com- 
monly read. But the purpose of the Senate appears, 
from the readings of some MSS. to have been much 
more important than is expressed by this common 
reading of the Decree. 

The last words of the princeps editio Bas. 1546. are 
(xri7roT£ Tapa.TTy\TOLi xXeog ayopcov. This is also the 

* The expression has a strong intensive meaning, like the lan- 
guage of Scripture : " which thing ought not to be done." 

f The imperfect form sJiW« is the usual language of agoiiistic 
inscriptions, as esfcw* is in works of art. 



44 

reading of Bas. 1570. Instead of ayopwv, Scaliger, 
Casaubon, Gronovius, Bishop Fell, and Bishop Clea- 
ver, have aycovcov. But Salmasius reads, with a most 
important difference of meaning, jx7) ttottolq apsrao 
xAsog ayovrcov, non ad virtutis gloriam conducentium. 
Chishull also reads rao apsra.%, but instead of ayourcou 
has arifxcou. According to the commonly received 
reading, the final purpose of the Decree was, that the 
glory of the games might not be disturbed ; according 
to Salmasius's, it was to prevent the introduction of 
any thing into Sparta, not conducive to the honour of 
virtue, and the reading of Salmasius has the authority 
of Manuscripts. 

The commonly received text corresponds very ill 
with the general tenor of the Decree, which repre- 
sents the offence of Timotheus to consist in corrupting 
the Spartan youth by violating the simplicity of the 
ancient music, and by unbecoming representations of 
the public religion. The end to be answered by the 
censure of such offences must have been something 
consonant with the great object of their national music. 
The glory of the 'public games was certainly not that 
object, but the moral instruction of youth, and the 
honour of religion, or, in other words, the glory of 
public virtue. They annexed no other value to their 
public games, than as they were subservient to virtue. 
Xenophon, in his treatise on the Lacedaemonian Polity 
(ch. x.), speaking of the pains which Lycurgus took 
to promote the exercise of virtue even to extreme old 
age, says, KaTvo^ 8 s [xoi hoxei 6 Auxovpyog i/oju,<&ST7)<rou 



45 

xoli yJ ^XP l yyP 60 ^ OMrxoiT av APETH. — oa-cp ouv xpsir- 
rou 'tyvx*! (ray^oLrog, too-o'Jto) xoli OI AT12NES T12N 
. ¥TXGN 7] o! rcov S12MAT12N af ioenrou8aioTef 01. Vir- 
tue morale political, or military, was the end of all 
their institutions ; and moral virtue, eminently, of that 
festival which is mentioned in the Decree. 

Tag APETAP iihzoQ was, therefore, much more 
consistent with the views of the Spartan senate than 
*Asog Ari2N&N. If the latter had been the original 
reading, we should probably have had a word of much 
greater force than raparryirai, such as ariixaa-^rjroti, 
or the like, that is, not " lest the glory of the games 
should be disturbed" but dishonoured, degraded, vi- 
lified. Tap apsrotp, the reading of Salmasius's text, is 
also the reading of the Cambridge MS. and of an 
Oxford MS. quoted in p. 36 of the Oxford edition, 
and roLpaperoLi of another. Ayovrcov or ayourov is also 
the reading of several MSS. 

From this reading, then, (pj 7tottu% apsraq xXsoq 
ayovTcov, non ad virtutis gloriam conducentium) we 
obtain a meaning most consonant with the character of 
the Spartan music (as a part of moral education, and 
a means of excitement to virtue), and with the reli- 
gious solemnities of the Eleusinian festival. For the 
sake of such a reading it will be worth while to bring 
under our view a few of the many passages of the an- 
cients which shew that they made music a part of 
moral education, and held it to be, in its grave and 
simple melodies, conducive to virtue ; that the Spar- 
tans, especially, forbad all changes in their music as 



46 



dangerous to public morals, and punished those who 
made innovations in it ; and that their national insti- 
tutions were valued only so far as they were conducive 
to virtue. 

Music was originally appropriated to religious wor- 
ship, and to the instruction of youth; two important 
objects, corresponding with the two charges, in the 
Decree against Timotheus, for corrupting the ears of 
youth by his light and varied melodies, and for mis- 
representing the public religion. En*» [ksvtoi tcdv sti 
ap-^aioTSpmv ouSs sihsuai tyaart Tovg \EAA7jva£ Tt\v ^rsaTpi- 
xr}i/ [Aoucav. 'Otojv $e a\)T?\s tv\v £7ri<rTr)[Ar}V irpog ts 0E- 
&N TIMHN, xm THN T12N NE&N IIAIAETSIN 
Trapahap&aveoSai. Plutarch de Musica*. Again, in 
the same treatise, he says of its religious office and mo- 
ral influence, tcd yap ovn to irpwTov a\JTr\g xai xoCKKkt- 
tou spyou sf EIS TOTS ©EOY2 £v%apiorTog aa-Tiv ajuot- 
jSrj, s7rofA£Vov TouTia xai Ssorspov to Tr\g SPTXHS KA- 
©AP2ION xau s^fxsXsg xai suapfxouiou o-u<TTr}pa~\". 

Such objects sufficiently account for that gravity 
and simplicity in the more ancient music, of which 
the Lacedaemonians were so tenacious, and which it 
was the purpose of this Decree to vindicate and per- 
petuate. 'Eva yap Tim Tpowov, v\ rraVTshcog ohiyoug (Aa- 
xs()ai[JLovioi) sxhs!*a[K£Voi, ovg wovto irpog ttjv twv H0&N 
EIIANOP0&2IN appoTTsw%. Its simple and austere 
features are strongly marked and contrasted by Athe- 
nseus. Aaxs^aipovLoi Ss jxaAi<rra to)U aTO^cou Awpiswv 

* Op. Moral, p. 1140. ed. Xyl. f Ibid. p. 1146. 

+ Ibid. p. 1142- 



47 

tol KOLTpia (>ia<$>i>XoiTTov<ri. — 7J [aw yap Acopiog dpfJLOVia 
to AN AP*2AE£ ajiupaivsi xou to MEPAAOriPEIIES, 
xai co Siaxs^upevov out? Vhapov, aXka SKT0PX2IION 

XOLl S^OAPON, OUTS §5 7TOlXlXoV OUOS ITOT^VT pOTTOV * . 

This contrast is concisely expressed in the Decree : 
ArENNH xoli noiKIAAN wm AIIAOAP xa * TE- 
TAMENAP*j~. On which words the following pas- 
sage of Plutarch may serve as a comment. Xspvr) ouv 

KOLTOL TTOLVTOL if fJLOUO~l}Crj, §£0)V SUp7}^Cl 01)07*. Ep£p7J<raVT0 
6 aUTTr) 01 TTOLhOLiOi XOLTOL TTjU OL<~IOLV, WCTTTS^ XOLi T0l£ ZT?lTf\- 
tisvpOLO-l 7TOLG-IV. Ol &c VUV TOL 0-£(AUOt, OLOTTfi IT apaiTf\0~ OL^Z - 

voi avTi T7\g ANAP&AOYS xai §ea-7reo-iag xai Seoig 
<P&ris, KATEAITIAN wu KGTIAHN sig ra ^sarpa 
EKTotyouo-i^. Quintilian, who was contemporary with 
Plutarch, has expressed, in very similar terms, the 
difference between the ancient music and the modern 
of his own time. Apertius tamen profltendum puto, 
non hanc a me praecipi, quae nunc in scenis effeminata, 
et impudicis modlsf racta, sed qua laudes fortium ca- 
nebantur§ : such as Plutarch describes it in his sKiTy- 
Ssojxara Aaxcovixa, speaking of the Spartan music, ovftsv 

$ eTspov si%£V f\ STraivoug touj ysvixcog tyio-avTwv sway- 

ys%ia ts xai ^syaXav^ia irpog APETHN 7rpeiro'j(r<x raig 
faixiaig\\. 

* Athenaeus Deipnos. L. XIV. p. 624. 

f TETctjj.svoc.% continues, uniformis. 

% Plutarch, ibid. p. 1136. 

§ Instit. Orat. L. I. 10. 31. ed. Gesner. 

i| Sect. xiv. ed. Wyttenbach. 



48 

The ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, were 
studious of every thing that had influence in the for- 
mation of character and moral sentiment *, and there- 
fore preferred that kind of music which appeared to 
them most susceptible of such effects. " Ars ouv 
H0I2N fxaT^Krra $povTi§a wsToirj^svoi ol 7raAaioi to 
SEMNON xou awBpiepyov rr t g fj*ou(ri7cr}g ap^onoig irpoz- 
TifLcov^. Many testimonies, says Plutarch, might be 
brought to shew that the best-regulated states made 
the cultivation of such music a national concern. Or* 
os xai raig £uvofx.oTaraig tcov 7roX*«)V S7njX£As£ ysysur^dt 
QpoVT&a, ttoisigScli rr\g TENNAIAS jmouo-JX7]£, izoKhct. 
fxsv xai aXXa ^aprupia 7rapo&£<r§ai strr^. 

The moral influence of music rendered it, even in 
the opinion of Aristotle, a rational part of education. 

E* fJISV OUV TOVTCOU QdLVSpOV, OTl ZwOLTOLl 7TQ10V Tl TO T7}£ 

ty*X*l£ H0OS povrixr} wapa(7xs\joL%eiv. Ei $e touto $wa- 

TOLl 7T01SJV, ^XOf OTl 7Tp0(TOLXTS0V XCLl 7Tai^SUT£0P EV aVTJ] 

roug vsovg^. That music was an ordinary part of 
Greek education we learn from Aristotle and Xeno- 

* A large portion of the best days of our youth is consumed in 
learning languages. The ancient Greeks had only their own lan- 
guage to learn. With very little expence of time in such initiatory 
elements, the whole care of their education was directed to the cul- 
tivation of moral principles and science. Languages must be learnt, 
as the auxiliar means of knowledge ; but Christian history, faith, 
and morals, should be the chief materials of a Christian education, 
without neglecting the aids of logic, and mathematics, and the arts 
of composition and elocution. 

t Plutarch. Op. Moral, p. 1144. + Ibid. p. 1146. 

§ Aristot. Polit. L. viii. c. 5. ed. Sylb. 



49 

phon. The former says, s<tti $s rsrrapcL a-^slov a toli- 
dsusiv siw^aari, ypa^aTa, xai yupvatTTixyv, xai MOT- 
2IKHN- xai TsrapTov svioi ypa<$ixy]V* : the latter, su^rwg 
os tts\vkwuiv sig ftiboLG-xoihcoy, fxa^rjaro^svoug xai ypa\t*- 
(xara, xai MOY2IKHN, xai roc sv iraKaKTTpcL^ . So 
universal was this custom, that inability to play on 
the lyre was held to be a proof of want of education. 
But it made a part of education, not as an elegant ac- 
complishment, but for its moral consequences, which 
Plutarch has ascribed to music in terms as decided, 
and almost as extravagant, as our great dramatic poet 
has characterized the immoral effects of an insensi- 
bility to music. Eit ouu Tig tov irai&suTixov tyj£ jaoihti- 
xr t g rpowov 6X7rovri(rag tu%oi S7ri[AShsiag Tr\g 7rpo(7r i xo'JO'r i g 
=v rj] rov ira&og -qhixia, to \ksv KAAON S7raivs(rsi ts 
xai. a.7ro^s^srai, "tys^si S* to svolvtiov sv ts Toig aXkoig xai 
sv Toig xaTa [Louo-ixyv, xai scrTai o ToiouTog xa&apog ira- 
<rrig ArENNOYS irpa%s<i>g%. 

If the ancient Greeks were persuaded that the moral 
effects of music were such as they described them \\> 
be, and if music bore so fundamental a part in the 
education of youth, it is no wonder that the Spartans, 
especially, were averse to all innovations in their mu- 
sic, from an apprehension that such innovations could 
not take place without a change in the national man- 
ners. So Plato thought, qui musicorum cantibus ait 
mutatis mutari civitatum status §. Cicero, who quotes 

* Aristot. Polit. L. viii. c. 3. f Aax^a^ov. UoXir. ch. 2. 

i Op. Moral, p. 1146, § Cicero de Legg. III. 15. 

E 



50 

his authority, relates also the transaction which is the 
subject of the Spartan Decree against Timotheus, and 
the care which the Senate took to prevent any ill con- 
sequences from it. Civitatum hoc multarum in Graecia 
interfuit, antiquum vocum conservare modum : qua- 
rum mores lapsi ad mollitiem, pariter sunt immutati 
cum cantibus. — Quamobrem ille quidem sapientissi- 
mus Graecia? vir, longeque doctissimus, valde hanc 
labem veretur: negat enim mutari posse musicas leges 
sine immutatione legu m publicarum. — Graviter olim 
ista vindicabat vetus ilia Graecia, longe providens. quam 
sensim pernicies, inlapsa civium animos, malis studiis 
malisque doctrinis repente totas civitates everteret : 
siquidem ilia severa Lacedaemon nervos jussit, quot* 
plures quam septem haberet, Tirnothei fidibus demi*f-. 
The consequences which the Spartan Senate wished 
to prevent in their own country, Maximus Tyrius in- 
forms us did take place in Sicily : on Awpizig rr t v tzol- 
rpiov exewrjV xai opsov \t*wj(T\xr\v xaToi\i7roVTsg, — ENO- 
0ETSAN opovry pouo-txy THN APETHN+. The 
Greeks, who employed their grave and simple melodies 
in the education of youth for their good effects, were 
equally persuaded of the immoral effects of corrupt 
music. M.ov(rixr) (paitfaj xou our para 7rovr)poi xai Koyoi 
lxoffiy)p<x£ v7rc&so~sig KaixfiavovTsg axoKcuTra. 7roiov<rsv 
H@H §. I have already quoted the authority of Aris- 

* i.e. quot haberet plures, quam septem. Vulgo quod — in Tirno- 
thei f. d. f Cicero de Legg. II. 16. 

% Diss. xx. § 8. § Plutarch, de Aud. Poet. 



51 

totle in proof of the moral influence of music. I shall 
here add a few more passages from him on account of 
their connection with the last words of the Decree. In 
the eighth book of his Politics he discusses the ques- 
tion whether music is conducive to virtue, or not, and 
decides in the affirmative. To his proposal oi^rsou 
IIPOSAPETHN ri TEINEIN ttjv pwwcixijvf, and 
afterwards, hi bpav, ei ttt, x*i IIPOS TO H0O2 STN- 
TEINEI xai irpog 40PXHN, he answers, To*jt6 oav 
~iri or t ?s.ov, si 7roioi Ttvsg tol H0H yiyvops^a 6? avT^g. 
Ax?va jtxvji/ on y lyvoixsQa —oioi rivsg, ftr^ov £ia iroWaiV 
fxsv xai aAXo)v, ouj/ r^xKrra xai <W rcou OXujji7ro f J jmsAcovj". 
He says that the Athenians having introduced a cer- 
tain species of music into the studies of their youth, 
afterwards rejected it, when experience had enabled 
them to distinguish what music was conducive to vir- 
tue, and what was not. "TvTspov o oLTrsfioxipaoSr, oia 
T7]g Trsipag ot'JTyg, @sXtiov OuvctfAsvcoy xpivsiv to IIPO^ 
APETHN, xoli to MH nPOS APETHN, 2YN- 
TEINONJ. 

The Lacedemonians were of all people the most 
likely to attend to such consequences : for Xenophon 
says that Lycurgus made his countrymen habituate 
themselves to the exercise of every kind of virtue ; and 
that the Spartans alone made virtue the discipline of 
the state. Toos ys jjitjv tou Auxoupyov trwg ou jxsyaAwc 
a^iov ayao-^rriVOLi ; bg sttsi^ x<XTSfj.o&sv } oti ol jt/.rj j3ouXo- 

* Aristot. Polit. L. viii. c. 8. p. 222. ed. Sylb. 
f Ibid. p. 224. i Ibid. p. 227 

E 2 



52 



psvot sttiilsXsigQou tv\s apsrr\g, oux Ixavoi eicrt rag Trarpi- 
&x£ avl-sw, sxsivog sv T)] Swapr*) Y}Va,yxoL(re AHMOSIA* 
Tavrag II AS AS olgtxsiv TAS APETA2. 'SltnTSQ ouv 
i^Korai rcov ibiaoTcov §ia$>spo\)(rw apsryi, oi curxovvreg rwv 

OLfASXoUVTGOV, OUTO) XOLl 1J %^apT7j SlXOTOtg TTafTCOV TQ)U 7TO- 

Xswu S*a<£sp£i, ftov>j AHMOSIAi s7rirrj^Euou(ra rv)V KA- 
AOKAiPAOIAN*. It was hence that in Sparta EY- 
KAEIA p*hi<rra sttstm ry APETHif , the APETAP 
KAEOP, according to the proposed reading of the last 
words of the Decree. 

If, then, KAAA H0H and APETH were the im- 
mediate objects and the ultimate end of the Spartan 
institutions, especially of their music, it is clear that 
they must have been also of a Decree, the purpose of 
which was to censure and punish Timotheus for cor- 
rupting their music, and for an offence against reli- 
gion ; and, therefore, that the concluding words of 
the Decree should be read, as they are written in some 
MSS. TAP APETAP xXso^ APONTX2N, morum 
non honestorum, non ad virtutis gloriam conducen- 
tium, that is, in the language of Aristotle before 
quoted, MH IIP02 APETHN SYNTEINONTCN. 

To these considerations on the ancient Greek music, 
and its influence on national manners, we may add 
the moral character of the festival, at which the con- 
duct of Timotheus incurred the censure of the Spartan 
Senate. The Eleusinian mysteries were esteemed by 
the ancients, as the most important of their religious 
solemnities. A higher character cannot be given of 

* AuxsSoup, xohiT. C. X. f Ibid. o. ix. 



53 

them than in the words of Cicero, who was initiated 111 
them at Eleusis. Nam mihi cum multa eximia divi- 
naque videntur Athenae tuae peperisse, atque in vitam 
adtulisse, tuna nihil melius illis mysteriis, quibus ex 
agresti immanique vita exculti ad humanitatem et 
mitigati sum us ; initiaque ut appellantur, ita revera 
principia vitas cognovimus ; neque solum cum laetitia 
vivendi rationem accepimus, sed etiam spe meliore 
moriendi*. 

The subject, which Timotheus adopted, seems to 
have been as ill chosen, as it was unbecomingly de- 
scribed. The Son of Semele was not the Bacchus, to 
whom the Eleusinian mysteries were consecrated. 
The God of wine, and the patron of drunkenness, was 
quite out of place at those augusta mysteria, as they 
are called by Cicero, who thus distinguishes the Son 
of Semele from the Eleusinian Bacchus : Hunc dico 
Liberum Semele natum: non eum quern nostri majores 
auguste sancteque Liberum cum Cerere & Libera con- 
secraverunt -f. 

How reprehensible the Spartan Senate must have 
thought the conduct of Timotheus, we may judge from 
the general persuasion respecting the Eleusinian mys- 
teries. Horum sacrorum earn vim esse vulgo puta- 
bant, ut qui eis essent initiati, majorem cogmlionem 
Deorum, acriusque virtutis studhim accepissent, unde 
ea sacra rahy, Latinis initia, dicuntur, quia initium 
vitae melioris et virtutis esse credebantur."i 

* De Legg. II. 14. f Be Natum Deor. II. 24. 

X Krebsius ad Plutarch, de Aud. Poet. cap. 4. 



54 



Candidates for initiation at these festivals were ex~ 
horted to the love of truth and purity, and to the prac- 
tice of every virtuous habit. And at a certain period 
of the ceremonies all persons, not initiated, were for- 
bidden to remain in the assembly on pain of death. 
Lycurgus was nojt less anxious to secure Sparta from 
the contamination of foreign manners. With this view 
he restrained the Spartans from travelling into foreign 
countries, lest they should learn their " foreign man- 
ners and irregular lives," Ivot [XY t rcov £svixwv H0£N 
xui BII2N oLTroL&svTcov jutsrao-^oG-* *. He was equally 
careful to exclude foreigners from Sparta, " that they 
might not teach the citizens any bad'' principles or 
customs : Irruyg o\ wapeurqeovTeg [xr t o&olctxolXoi KAKOY 
TINGS roig iroT^iraig uVap^oxn* Timotheus, as a fo- 
reigner, would have been excluded from the Spartan 
festival ; but was invited (woLpoLxhrftzis) probably, on 
account of his celebrity in music. He therefore be- 
came obnoxious to the Senate not only as an innovator 
in music, and a misrepresenter of their religion, but as 
a foreigner, who had made an ill use of their hospita- 
litv. He was accordingly censured and punished, that 
others might be deterred from introducing into Sparta 
any tiling immoral, or not conducive to the honour of 
virtue. 

I will now subjoin a copy of the Decree, as I think 
it ought to be read, together with an English transla- 
tion, and an extract from Boethius by way of intro- 
duction to it, which may be of some use in ascertain- 
ing the right reading of the conclusion. 

* Plutarch. Esr*T*J. Aaxm. § 19, 20. ed. Wyttenb. 



55 

EXCERPTUM EX BOETHII LIBRO 
DE MUSICA.* 
Unde fit, ut cum sint quatuor matheseos disciplinae, caeterae qui- 
dem ad mvestigationem veritatis laborent, ]\lusica vero non modo 
specuIationi,verum etiara moralitati conjunctasit. — Unde Plato etiam 
maxime cavendum existimat, ne de bene morata musica aliquid per- 
mutetur. Negat enim esse ullam tantam morum in republica labem, 
quam paulatim de pudenti ac modesta musica invertere. Statim enim 
idem quoque audientium^animos pati, paulatimque discedere, nul- 
lumque honesti ac recti retinere vestigium, si vel per lasciviores 
modos inverecudum aliquid, vel per asperiores ferox atque immane 
mentibus illabatur. — Fuit vero pudens ac modesta musica, dum 
shnplicioribus organ is ageretur. Ubi vero varie permixteque trac- 
tata est, amisit gravitatis atque virtutis modum, et pene in turpitu- 
dinem prolapsa, minimum antiquam speciem servat. Unde Plato 
praecipit, minime oportere pueros ad omnes modos erudiri, sed po~ 
tius ad valentes ac simplices. Atque hie maxime illud est retinen- 
dum, quod si quoquo modo per parvissimas mutationes hinc aliquid 
permutaretur, recens quidem minime sentiri, post vero magnam fa- 
cere differentiam, & per aures ad animum usque delabi. Idcirco 
magnam esse custodiam reipublicse Plato arbitratur, musicam op- 
time moratam, prudenterque conjunctam, ita ut sit modesta ac sim- 
plex & mascula. nee effeminata, nee fera nee varia. Quod Lacedae- 
monii maxima ope servavere, dum apud eos Taletas, Crestensis Gor- 
tinus magno pretio accitus pueros disciplina musicae artis imbueret, 
Fuit enim id antiquis in morem, diuque permansit. Quoniam vero 
eis Timotheus Milesius super eas, quas ante repererat, unum addidit 
nervum, ac multipliciorem Musicam fecit, exegere de Laconia, Con- 
sultumque de eo factum est. Quod quoniam insigne est Spartia- 
tarum linguae S iiteram in R vertentium, ipsum de eo consultum 
eisdem verbis Graecis apposui. 



Quod consultum id scilicet conti net; Idcirco Timotheo MilesioSpar- 
tiatas succensuisse, quod multipHcem Musicam reddens, puerorum 
animis, quos acceperat erudiendos, officeret, et a virtutis modestia 
praepediret, & quod harmoniam, quam modestam susceperat, in 
^enus chromaticum, quod est mollius, invertisset. 

* Ed. Bas. 1570. p.~1371. 



56 

GREEK TEXT. 
J ETre&ri T^oo-^6MIAHSIOPnAPriNOMENOP 

2 £V TGtV CLfASTcpOLV 7T0XlV TOLV IIAAAAN * ^(OOLV OLTI- 

3 i^a^sk, xai rav Sia tolv stftol ^opSav KISAPISIN 

4 ct7ro(TTpe(po[L6yoQ 7roXy(pa>i/iaj/ SKraym Xufxaivsrai rap 

5 etxoag twv vsojv, <W ts ra£ woku^opliaq koli tolq 

6 KAINOTATOP too peXeoq aysuurj xai 7roixika.v avn 

7 aw'koaq xcu TSTOLpevotq otju.Tr evvurai tolv juieoav, stti 

8 XpcopOLTOg (TUVlO-TOipSVOg TOLV TO) JU.SA5O0 AIA§KET- 

P AN avri rag evap^Qvico, wmwv avTia-Tpotyov ol[xo.i$olv. 

10 IIAPAKAH@EI2 hs sv tov aycova Tag EXswnwag 

1 1 AotfxaTpoq a7rp£7rrj ^isa-xsuacraro tolv too ^iktco oia~ 

12 (txzuolv' TAP TAP rag ^eps^ S2AINAF ouxsvhxoi 
\S rwq vswq EAIAAKKE. AsSo^ai TI2N ^ TOY- 

14 TUN t«>§ fiounXsag xai tood s&opwq ias^olgSoli Tj~ 

15 [*o<riov, EUANANKAHAI 8s %at Tav svosxol ^op^av 

16 sxtol^sv tolq TrspiTTOLQ uttoXsittojulsvov told Ittto, o7rft>£ 

17 sxaa-Toq to rao woXiog jdapoq OJTITAN guXa0ijTai sv 

18 tolv %7raprav zizi^zp-v ti tcov fj.7} xoCkoov BES&N 5 

19 H TON pj nOTTO TAP APETAP xXsog 

20 APONTflN. 

* Line 2. ft-atacs^ is here written instead of 7r«x«t«» or waAeav 
on the authority of Etymol. Mag. and Eustathius quoted by Mait- 
taire p. 154. Line 12. TAP is from the text of Glareanus. Line 
13. EAIAASKE (of which e^&wcxe is the Laconian form) is the 
reading of Casaubon. Line 15. ETTANANKASAI is from ChishulL 
Line 17. Otttov is the reading of Bas. 1546. wtttov of Bas. 1570. owr«v 
of Casaubon. OIITAN is the Doric of otttwv. Bas. 1570. is otttocv trans- 
posed. Line IS, 19. H TfiN HOTTO are from Mr. Porson. The 
other readings which differ from the Oxford text, have either been 
already mentioned, or will speak for themselves, 



57 

ENGLISH TRANSLATION *. 
Whereas Timotheus, the Milesian, coming to our 
city, dishonours the ancient music, and, rejecting the 
melody of the seven-stringed lyre, corrupts the ears of 
our youth by introducing a variety of tones ; and by 
the multiplicity of the strings, and the novelty of the 
melody, renders the music effeminate and complex in- 
stead of simple and uniform; composing his melody 
in the chromatic instead of the enharmonic, using the 
antistrophic change: and whereas being invited to the 
musical contests at the festival of Eleusinian Ceres, he 
composed a poem unbecoming the occasion ; for he 
described to our youth the pains of Semele at the birth 
of Bacchus not with due reverence and decorum : be it 
therefore resolved, that the Kings and Ephori shall 
censure Timotheus for these things, and moreover shall 
oblige him to retrench the superfluous number of his 
eleven strings, leaving seven, that all men, seeing the 
grave severity of our city, may be deterred from in- 
troducing into Sparta any thing immoral^, or not con- 
ducive to the honour of virtue J. 

* A translation of the greater part of this Decree, was given in 
Stillingfleet's Principles and Power of Harmony (1771) and in Bur- 
ney's History of Music, Vol. I. p. 407. (1776.) but not an entire ver- 
sion in either. 

f H$«v, or sSwv,Laconiee /3«rwv, is a more comprehensive term than 
customs or manners ; and y.aXm, than good. KaXwv has here the 
same relation to virtue, as it has in KaAotaya&a. 

£ T* tuv fji.fi aaXcbV @t<ru)v s v rwv py xorro rccg OLgerocg K\sog xyovTuv, 
aliquid morum non honestorum, aut non ad viriutis gloriam conducen- 
Hum. 



58 

In line 14. instead of to)% styopwo the princeps editio 
has roiv pyropeM, Ed. Bas. 15 70. tov pyropog, MS. Seld. 
and Cantab, TopsTspoo, Scaliger pr t Topa%, Casaubon stpopcoo. 
The Ephori are the magistrates, who according to Plu- 
tarch* 1 punished both Terpander and Timotheus. 

Line 15, lo\ Instead of tcov su^bxol %op§ot,v exTapev 
tolq 7rspiTTa% uVoAsiTrojxsvoy ra^ stttol, Leopard and Ca- 
saubon have zxTafAovTaq tol%, Salmasius, Bullialdus, 
and Person, sxTafxovTa Tag, Scaliger sxtol^siv rug, 
Ed. princeps sxtclvwv tol^, Ed. 1570- sxravcoo rag, 
Dio Chrysost. sxtspstvf- Tag, all the MSS. have exTapov 
distinct from tolo, and only rag the article of TrspiTraq. 

Salmasius and Porson, instead of o7roAsi7rojutsvov read 
wroTuTnjv jxoi/ov. The MSS. and the first Editors have 
the participle. If exrajiew be right before, the parti- 
ciple is necessary here. 

Line 18, 19. Instead of rt jjwj xolaoov tj^cov, ju,7]7tot£ 
TapaTrrjTOLi, Salmasius reads ti tj^wj/ jjwj 7rorra^ apera^ 
Porson ti |X7j xaCKusv, y tcov |X7) totto Tag apsroto. But 
both xaTicov and rftcov, or its Laconian form, appear in- 
dispensable to the passage. The concluding words of 
the Decree, which recite the end proposed by the 
Senate in the punishment of Timotheus, appear to re- 
late, as might be expected, to the two charges alleged 
against him in the Decree, tol juwj xaCha. v$r\ having re- 
ference to his music, and tol jxt) 7rpog apsTtjv ayovTa, 

* EmmS. Aajcwv. § 17. 

f It should be sktcc[xuv, in the same tense as *ty\&$cu, which pre- 
cedes it. 






59 

both to his music and his poem. Cicero seems to have 
referred to the same two-fold view of the Senate, in the 
passage before quoted: Graviter olim ista vindicabat 
vetus ilia Graecia, longe providens, quam sensim per- 
nicies inlapsa civium animos, malis studiis malisque 
doctrinis repente totas civitates everteret : siquidem 
ilia severa Laced aem on jussit, quot plures quam septem 
haberet, Timothei fidibus demi. Jnssit can mean no- 
thing less, than the Decree of the Spartan Senate; nor 
longe providens, than the object they had in view, 
which was to prevent the ill consequences of the mala 
stadia, and mala? doctrince, which they had witnessed 
in Timotheus's music, and in his poem, stadia refer- 
ring to the music, and doctrince to the poem, in which 

I have admitted into the text Mr. Porson's y rwv. 
because it seems highly probable that these words have 
been absorbed by the similar sound of rfrcov, or vrpcov. 
as most MSS. have it. But I have retained rficov, in 
its Laconian form fisa-tov, because rcou kolXwu, taken ab- 
solutely, are not distinguishable from tcou irpog olosttiv 
ayovTcov, to. hoKol being either virtue, or conducive to 
virtue. But witli rftwv, (or its Laconian form,) the new 
reading 73 rcov creates a necessary distinction, one clause, 
pj xoChoiv vftcov, referring to mala studia, and (pautoj 
fMoucrixr^ and 7} rcov (sc. a7<JKa)v) ^.r t -jrpog apsr7]U ayovrcov, 
referring to mala? doctrince, and 7rov7)pa oL<rparoL. 

Instead of rftcov, or eSwv, I have preferred fiso-cov, 
because we know, that the Lacedemonians used 05<ro* 



60 

for s^ros, and therefore fiso-wv for sScov, or Fs&eov, with 
the Digamma, for which the Spartan dialect used B. 
Bs<rwv indeed is not the reading of any MSS. extant: 
but " in matters of dialect, as Mr. Porson justly ob- 
•' serves, the MSS. of Boethius ought to be discarded 
" as incompetent witnesses *." 

That 7j^ra)u } or e§wv, or its Laconian form, as well as 
apBTOLQ, were originally in the text of the Decree seems 
probable also from the language of Boethius in the 
Procemium to his treatise on music, in which he has 
introduced the Decree. He says, " that music is mo- 
ralitati conjuncta;" that by innovations in " bene mo- 
rata musica" the minds of those who are accustomed 
to them, lose all sense " honesti rectique" that arti- 
ficial varieties in music destroy " gravitatis et virtntis 
modum;" and that Timotheus, by the variety which 
he introduced into music, injured the minds of youth 
" et a virtutis modestia praepediret." In Cicero, Dio 
Chrysostom, Plutarch, Athenaeus, and Boethius, we 
find no authority for the glory of the games, nor for 
Mr. Knight's Laconian aorist, rapapsron. 

nOTTO is Mr.Porson's reading. Salmasius's IIOT- 
TAP apsrao xXsog may, perhaps, be defended by the 
examples, which sometimes occur, both of *Asog with- 
out an article, even in a definite sense, and of the 
connection of Tpogor 7tot with a noun, which is not of its 

* Tracts and Miscellaneous Criticisms of the late Richard Porson, 
Esq. edited and arranged by the Rev. Thomas Kidd. 



61 

own government, such as §ia tcov ovoparayv rr,g (rwq- 
Qsiag for W Trig Ta)V ovofjLOLTmv cvvrfteiag in Plutarch de 
Aud. Poet. (ed. Wyttenb. Vol. I.) but for the reason 
suggested by the very learned Editor*. ArONTUN 
has the authority of many MSS. 

Boethius intimates that the Lacedaemonians ba- 
nished Timotheus, exegere de Laconica. If this were 
the case, it must have been by some act of the Senate 
subsequent to this Decree. For here is nothing re- 
quired^ but censure, and the reduction of the eleven 
strings to seven. Suidas says, that Timotheus added 
a tenth, and an eleventh string to the lyre. Pherecrates 
ascribes to him tw r elve strings^. And as he was cen- 
sured at the Carnea^, and at the festival of Eleusinian 
Ceres, it is probable, that for the tenth string he was 
censured at the former festival, and for the eleventh at 
the latter ; and that he was banished for the twelfth. 
As his predecessors, Terpander and Phrynis, were also 
censured for their innovations in the lyre, one of them, 
probably, added the eighth string, and the other the 
ninth. Before Terpander's time the lyre had only 
seven strings. 

Before I quit this interesting monument of anti- 
quity, I must not omit noticing the remarkable cir- 

* Animadversionum Wyttenb. Vol. I. p. 225. 

f Except in Scaliger's reading, ikolc-tcitu ts xtoa tto?^ ficeeop -, and 
I find nothing that favours this reading in any printed or manuscript 
copy. 

+ Apud Plutarch de Musica. Op. Mor. p. 1142, 

§ Plutarch E~.t^. Aaxwv. § 17. ed. Wyttenb, 



62 

cumstance of its preservation by a Latin writer of the 
sixth century. It is not found in any writer now ex- 
tant but Boethius, who lived nearly a thousand years 
after the transaction to which it relates. It is not 
expressly quoted by any writer, that has come down to 
us, prior to Boethius ; nor does he mention from whom 
he derived it. It is not noticed by Aristoxenus, Pto- 
lemy, Plutarch, Aristides Quintilianus, or other wri- 
ters on Music ; nor (where, perhaps, it might have 
been more expected) by Plato, or Aristotle, or Cicero, 
in their works on Government and Law ; nor by those 
miscellaneous writers, Athenaeus, JEHan, Aulus Gel- 
lius, or Valerius Maximus: nor even by the ancient 
writers on the Greek Dialects. 

It is difficult to account for the silence of these wri 
ters, whether we consider the Decree, as a very emi- 
nent example of the Spartan dialect and policy, or as 
intimately connected with the history of Music. Yet 
there can be no doubt of its authenticity. The fact of 
Timotheus's being publickly censured for his innova- 
tions in the lyre, and the reduction of the strings from 
eleven to seven, are recorded by Cicero, Dio Chrysos- 
tom, and Athenaeus, with some variety in their narra- 
tives, but with expressions so nearly resembling the 
language of the Decree, as to be little less than cita- 
tions from it. Cicero's ilia severa Lacedcemon nervos 
Jussit, quot plures quam sept em haberet, Timothei 
Jidibus demi, before quoted, can mean nothing less 
than this Decree of the Senate. Dio Chrysostom em- 
ploys the very words of the Decree in common Greek : 



63 

X0PAJ2N TAS TIEPITTAS EKTEMEIN, as he 

does the beginning of the Decree : Toiyapouv <p<x<n 
AaxeSaipowou* EIIEIAH TIMO0EO2 fa TIAF 

avroig.* Athena?us also, relating the fact, with some 
variety, has the words sxre^vsiv rag wspirrag rcou 

We are in possession then, of a Greek Decree, of 
unquestioned authenticity, preserved by a Latin 
writer, who lived nearly a thousand years after the 
transaction ; not quoted by writers whose subjects 
most naturally admitted and even required it ; and 
omitted in the most ancient editions of Boethius's 
works. 

In the Scriptures of the New Testament we have a 
remarkable instance of such omission. An important 
passage of St. John we find first quoted at large (not 
in the original words, but in the sense of the original,) 
by a Latin writer, w r ho lived more than four centuries 
after the death of St. John. The absence of 1 John 
v. 7, from ancient MSS. of the New Testament, and 
the Fathers, is much more easily accounted for, than 
the omission of the Lacedaemonian Decree by Greek 
writers on Music, Government, and Dialects ; yet 
many learned men have doubted the authenticity of 
the verse in St. John's Epistle, because none of the 
Greek Fathers have quoted the verse, even in passages 

* Orat. xxxiii.p. 411. Toiyaeovv Qcxn Aa*de« juonouj, etteiSyi Ti/xoSfo? 

YlKS <7I0C% OUVTOkC, Tt?V T? XivG^av CtVTOV OctyiXtaVCtl, X.&A TtoV ;£OP<W T5J,' 

rf§JTT«s eKTspuv. It. should be wtkuhv, m the same tense as uQeXzo-Scu, 
f Deipnos. L. XIV. c. ix. 



64 

where we might most naturally expect to meet it But 

1. It may have been purposely omitted in a large 
portion of the MSS. that were written during that 
agitated period, that intervened from the death of 
Constantine to the reign of Justinian. 

2. It may not Jiave been quoted by the most ancient 
writers on the Trinity, because they did not consider 
it as a proof of the Trinity. 

In support of the former reason, we know from Ire- 
naeus in the second century, and from Origen in the 
third, that the Scriptures were mutilated by unbe- 
lievers in Christ's Divinity, who had sometimes 
supreme influence in the Church from the latter part 
of the fourth Century to the beginning of the sixth, 
Some of our oldest MSS. are ascribed to this period. 

But the most extensive system of mutilation could 
not succeed in the entire extirpation of the verse. 
How then happened it, that, in the disturbed period 
before mentioned, the verse should not have been 
quoted by any Greek writer on the Trinity ? Because. 
I suppose, it did not appear to them to be a proof of 
the unity of the three Divine persons, but rather, of 
the concurrence of their testimony to the Messiahship 
of Christ. 

But if the most ancient writers did not notice it, 
how came it to be quoted by subsequent writers ? 
Probably, because being a proof of the distinct exist- 
ence of three Divine Persons, they considered it, 
secondarily, (as Scripture cannot contradict itself) a 
proof that there are three Divine persons in one God, 



66 

But how came a Latin writer, Vigilius TapsensiSj 
by it, when it is not found in more ancient Greek wri- 
ters ? I must answer this question by another. How 
came the Latin Boethius by the Spartan Decree, when 
it was not to be found in Plato or Aristotle, in Aris- 
toxenus, or Plutarch, Aristides Quintilianus, &c. or in 
many other writers, where it might have been ex- 
pected ? 

It is found in Latin MSS. of the Scriptures of great 
antiquity. The Latin MSS. in which it is found, are 
much more numerous, than those in which it is 
omitted. And, though it is not found in the most 
ancient MSS. of the Scriptures, it is quoted by Latin 
Fathers of much greater antiquity than any of the 
MSS. from which it is absent ; and was expressly ap- 
pealed to by the African Bishops in the fifth century, 
at the Council of Carthage. 

If it is found in Latin writers, and not in Greek ; so 
is the Decree. If it is omitted by Greek writers, who 
have written largely on the Trinity ; so is the Decree 
by writers on Music, Government, and Dialects. If it 
is first quoted at large by a Latin writer, who lived 
four hundred years after St. John ; the Decree is first 
expressly quoted and preserved by a Latin writer, who 
lived a thousand years after the promulgation of the 
Decree. 

In questions of this nature, the correctness of the 
decision must depend on the critical competency of 
the inquirer. We may, therefore, for the authenticity 
of 1 John v. 7. appeal with confidence to Pearson and 

F 



66 

Bull. If a in mute knowledge of MSS. and a critical 
appreciation of various readings, be necessary to the 
inquiry, we may, to Wetstein s and GriesbacrTs rejec- 
tion of the verse, oppose Mill's and Bengelius's con- 
viction of its authenticity. And if, since the publica- 
tion of Griesbach's labours, Mr. Porson has brought 
the weight of his great learning and sagacity against 
the verse, we may, without any disparagement of his 
judgment, allege, in support of the verse, the decision 
of Ernesti and Bishop Horsley. 

If the external evidence from MSS. be unfavourable 
to the verse, the internal evidence is greatly in its 
favour. The connection of the context requires the 
verse. The earthly testimony in the 8th verse, has a 
manifest relation to the heavenly testimony in the 
seventh ; and the comparison in the 9th verse has re- 
ference to both. The use of the article with h in the 
8th verse, is unaccountable (as is suggested by the 
learned Bishop of Calcutta) without the preceding eu in 
the seventh verse. The term Aoyog, as it is here used, 
is peculiar to St. John. 

The authenticity of this verse (as Ernesti has ob- 
served) does not depend solely on the evidence of 
Greek MSS. and cannot be decided by them. " Si 
yvyo-ioTyg commatis septimi e solis codicibus Graecis 
penderet, atque ex iis solis esset asstimanda, turn Gries- 
bachius causam obtinuisset. Sed quanquam Codices 
Grseci textus principatum in his rebus definiendis 
tenent, tamen docti et usu criticarum rerum praediti 
viri alia etiam adjumenta requirunt. Mihi quidem 



67 

maxime obstat nexus cum antecedentibus et conse* 
quentibus, quo minus sententiae eorum, qui hoc 
comma delendum esse censent, subscribam : nam v. 9. 
comparatio instituitur inter testimonium hominum et 
Dei ipsius, qua haud dubie ad testes illos ccelestes 
respicit Apostolus, quorum paullo ante meminerat." * 

II. 

I cannot omit the opportunity, which this Postscript 
affords me of vindicating the Bishop of St.* Asaph's 
" List of Books for the use of the younger Clergy," 
from a very great misrepresentation of it in the second 
of Dr. Marsh's Theological Lectures, not only be- 
cause, I think, it does injustice to the judgment of the 
late learned and lamented Prelate, but because it ap- 
pears to me to be calculated to mislead the younger 
Clergy, by confounding the order of their studies, and 
withdrawing their attention from what ought to be the 
first and last object of their Ministry. 

" A learned Prelate of our Sister University, who 
" has published a list of books recommended to the 
a younger Clergy, has made no less than fourteen 
" divisions in Theology, which he has arranged in the 
" following order : 1. The first division relates to Prac- 
" tical and Pastoral Duties. 2. Devotion. 3. Reli- 
" gion in general. 4. Revealed Religion. 5. The 
" Scriptures. 6\ Comments on the Scriptures. 7. Con- 
w cordances, &c. 8. Doctrines. 9. Creeds, Articles, 

* Tost. Interp. N. T. p. 109. 
F 2 



68 

il Catechism, and Liturgy. 10. Sacraments and Rites. 
" (subdivided into Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and 
M Confirmation.) 11. Constitution and Establishment 
" of the Church of England. 12. Ecclesiastical His- 
" tory. 13. Ecclesiastical Law. 14. Miscellaneous 
" subjects. — Then comes a second list, in which these 
" divisions are repeated ; and lastly a third, in which 
" they are exchanged for another set, amounting to 
" seventeen, which it would be really tedious to enu- 
u merate. Indeed throughout the whole of this theo- 
" logical arrangement there is nothing like system to be 
" discovered : no reason is assignable for the peculiar 
" position of any one head : nor does this disposition 
cC any way contribute to that, which should be the pri- 
u mary object of every writer — perspicuity. 

" A more judicious Prelate of our own University, 
" in the Preface to his Elements of Christian Theo- 
" logy divides the subject into four parts. The first 
u relates to the Exposition of the Scriptures ; the se- 
" cond, to the Divine Authority of the Scriptures; the 
" third, to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church 
" of England ; the fourth, to Miscellaneous subjects, 
" including Sermons and Ecclesiastical History. In 
" this arrangement there is method. For the Bible 
u must be understood, before we can prove its divine 
" authority ; and both of these tasks must be per- 
u formed, before we can proceed to deduce articles of 
" faith. Sermons, it is true, should not be placed in 
" the same class with Ecclesiastical History ; and in 



69 

* ; all systematic arrangements, the term ' Miscella- 
u neous should be wholly avoided/ 

That the learned Professor " misunderstands the de- 
sign of both these Prelates/' I am under no necessity 
of proving, because it has been already done by one of 
the most learned of our literary Journalists.* But I 
wish to shew to those of the younger Clergy, in whose 
studies I am specially interested, as well as to future 
Candidates for orders, that in the Bishop of St. Asaph's 
arrangement of Books for their use, there is an admi- 
rable system and connection ; that good reasons may 
be assigned for the position of each head in the 
arrangement; and that the disposition is perspicuously 
adapted to those views, which are most conducive to 
the success of their Ministry. 

I am persuaded, that the second of the learned Pre- 
lates before mentioned was by no means gratified by 
the preceding commendation of him at the expence of 
his right reverend Brother. I will not form any com- 
parison of the two arrangements, but content myself 
with shewing that the former arrangement has none of 
the defects imputed to it by the Professor, but is syste- 
matica lly and perspicuously suited to the purpose for 
which it was intended. 

Its purpose was to assist the younger Clergy in sueh 
a prosecution of their studies, as might best qualify 
them for the duties of their Profession. And what are 

* Quarterly Review, Vol. III. p. 210. 



70 

the sentiments and attainments necessary for their ac- 
quitting themselves best in their Profession ? 

I. A strong sense of duty, 

II. a devout feeling and exercise of personal reli- 

gion, 

III. a decided .conviction of the truth of Christi- 

anity, 

IV. a thorough knowledge of the Scripture, 

V. its doctrines, 

VI. and ordinances, 

VII. and a zealous and practical attachment to the 
Church, of which they are members. These are the 
sentiments and attainments prescribed by the Bishop of 
St. Asaph's List. And how are they to be acquired ? 

I. By the study of professional duties, 

II. by Prayer, 

III. by examining the evidences of Christianity, 

IV. by the daily study of the Scripture, (with the 
aid of comments, and other subsidiary means,) 

V. in all its doctrines of faith and works, 

VI. and the ordinances of Christ and his apostles, 

VII. and by a comprehensive knowledge of eccle- 
siastical history, especially of their own Church, and 
of ecclesiastical law, as far as concerns the rights of 
the Church, and the correct performance of their ordi- 
nary duties. 

With these professional sentiments and attainments, 
I will now shew how the Bishop of St. Asaph's four- 



71 

teen divisions*, in his select ion of books, successively 
accord. 

I. 1. Practical and Pastoral duties. 

II. 2. Devotion. 



jit f3- Religion in general, 
\ 4. Revealed Religion. 

{ 



5. The Scriptures. 
IV. ^ 6\ Comments on the Scriptures. 
Concordances, &c. 
8. Doctrines. 
Q. Creeds, Articles, Catechism, and Liturgy. 

VI. 10. Sacraments and Rites. 

Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Confirmation. 

ill. Constitution and Establishment of the 
Church of England. 
12. Ecclesiastical History. 
13. Ecclesiastical Law. 

14. Miscellaneous subjects. 

As some books are confined to single subjects, (such 

as belong to each of the preceding heads,) others are 

miscellaneous, and include a variety of subjects, so as 

not to be classed under any one head. To such books 

the fourteenth division is allotted. This list of Books 

was not published as a system of Theology, yet in its 

choice, order, and connection of subjects, in their de- 

* The fourfold division before mentioned, Dr. Marsh says, is as 
follows : " The first relates to the Exposition of the Scriptures ; the 
" second, to the divine authority of the Scriptures ; the third, to the 
" doctrine and discipline of the Church of England - } the fourth, to 
'* miscellaneous subjects, including sermons, and ecclesiastical his- 
" tory." Are these arrangements so different, that one should hardly 
suppose their authors were anahjsing the same subject ?" 



72 

scent (after the two preliminary points) from the gene- 
ral principle of religion to the particular establish- 
ment, discipline, and interests of our own Church, it 
has every advantage of the best system. 

I can hardly conceive a course of professional read- 
ing more calculated to make a conscientious, able, and 
useful minister of the Church of England, than that 
which is prescribed by the Bishop of St. Asaph's list of 
books. It appears to me much more judiciously dis- 
posed than the Professor's own System of Theology. 
To lay the foundation of Theology in a critical know- 
ledge of the Manuscripts, Various Readings, and Edi- 
tions of the Scriptures, is inverting the order of Theo- 
logical studies. It can have no general or practical 
influence on the ministry of the Church. It lends no 
aid to the conversion of the infidel, or the instruc- 
tion of the ignorant. The great cardinal passages of 
"Scripture derive no benefit from it. Patricius Junius 
was converted by reading the first chapter of St. John, 
Lord Lyttelton by the conversion of St. Paul, and 
Gilbert West by the evidences of Christ's resurrection. 
If ?] tcdu y^oyoov xpurig 7roXXr ; £ s(rri wsipag TEAETTAION 
#7nysm)juia, the criticism of the Bible, in the sense 
here adverted to, should be among the last branches 
of Theology instead of the first. By making it a large 
and prominent part of Theolpgy, it fixes the mind on 
the subsidiary means of the science, rather than the 
end. Its end is seen in its very name. Theology is 
doctrina de Deo, and Christian Theology, doctrina de 
Christo Deo. Among the ancient Fathers^ Theology 



73 

was the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. In this sense 
they understood the words ©eoAoyeiy and B-eoXoyia*. 
The knowledge of Christ, then, and of the means of 
mans salvation, should be the governing principles in 
Christian Theology ; and the foundation of it, as a 
science, should be laid in such preparatory grounds, as 
point directly and obviously to those great subjects 
which are the ends of Christian Theology. 

As all our knowledge of these subjects is derived 
from Cod's revelation of his will in the Scriptures, 
whatever tends to certify the truth of the Christian re- 
velation, and explain the languages in which the Scrip- 
tures are written, must ever be a necessary subject of 
Theology. But Providence has so mercifully pro- 
vided for our instruction in the great business of our 
salvation, that the important truths which most nearly 
concern us are the least embarrassed with difficulties, 
and require none of the aids of elaborate philology. 
Fortunately, therefore, for the generality of readers, 
even of clerical readers, the science of Manuscripts, 
various readings, and editions, is not among the neces- 
saries, but the luxuries of literature, indispensable, 
indeed, to the perfection of a Biblical critic, but by 
no means so either to the well-informed Christian or 
the sound Divine. 

The sound Divine cannot possess in too great a de- 
gree a critical knowledge of the original languages of 
Scripture ; but a critical knowledge of language is one 

* See Eusebius's Treatise on the subject, and Suicer's Thesaurus, 



74 

thing, and a critical knowledge of Manuscripts and 
Editions is another. The former will be useful to him 
in every page of Scripture ; the latter only in the dis- 
cussion of a few passages, in which, after all, the right 
reading must finally be determined from other sources. 
The Bibliography of the Bible (as I beg leave to call 
its external criticism) is interesting and useful, and no 
scholar ought to be ignorant of it (it is not excluded 
even from the Bishop of St. Asaph's Inventory) ; but 
it contributes very little to the right interpretation of 
Scripture-language ; for that we must not look to the 
Symbola? Criticae, or the Prolegomena of Griesbach, 
but to the learning of Casaubon and Gataker, of Bos 
and Hemsterhuis, of Valckenaer, Alberti, and Kypke, 
and to some excellent comments in our own lan- 
guage*. 

As one very important end of Theology is to instruct 
the future Minister of a Parish in the knowledge of 
his profession, the diligent aspirant to the Christian 
Ministry, before he has finished his academical stu- 
dies, will probably be well instructed in his pastoral 
duties. But in resuming his professional studies in 
his Parish, the young Clergyman will change the po- 
sition of this branch of his studies. What was last 
to the Academic, will be first to the Minister of aParish. 
The knowledge and practice of his Pastoral duties will 

* The edition of the Bible now publishing by the Society for 
Promoting Christian Knowledge cannot be too highly valued for 
its excellent selection of notes. 



75 

be the first object, and the permanent rule of his stu- 
dies. And with this object commences the Bishop of 
St. Asaph's List of Books for the younger Clergy. 
How well digested that List is, how systematically 
and perspicuously connected its successive divisions 
are with the several branches of religious knowledge, 
in their descent (after the two preliminary points) 
from the general principle of religion to the particular 
establishment, discipline, and interests of our own 
Church, I have already shewn. 

Yet however correctly and usefully arranged the 
List is, it was not published as a system of Theology. 
The Bishop expressly says, he is t€ not laying down 
Institutes of Divinity." He submits the List to his 
younger Clergy as an " Inventory" of Books, and de- 
clares his design in it was to " shew to younger stu- 
" dents, literate persons especially, how much it is 
u in the reach of the most retired situation to procure 
" valuable helps in their inquiries upon every import- 
" ant article of their profession." Yet the Professor 
has introduced it into his Lectures, as an example of 
defective analysis*; and of Theological arrangement 

* " Theological writers are far from being unanimous, either in 
••' regard to the number, or in regard to the kind of divisions, into 
" which Theology should be divided. In England, especially, so 
" little has been determined on this point, that few writers agree 
" in their divisions j and in some of them the difference is such, 
" that one should hardly suppose they were analysing the same sub- 
<{ ject." This observation Dr. Marsh exemplifies by a comparison 
between two Lists of Books, one by a <e a learned Prelate of a Sister 



76 

without system, reason, or 'perspicuity ; — with what 
justice, I leave the readers of the preceding pages to 
determine. 

The Bishop's Inventory, by its well-digested series, 
has all the order of system without pretending to it ; 
and it rests a young Clergyman's conduct on two great 
and leading principles, the want of which no system 
can compensate, a high sense of duty and personal 
religion ; it superadds to his literary and professional 
acquirements something better than mere literary ex- 
cellence ; and brings into exercise, and tends to per- 
petuate, those serious and interesting impressions, 
under which he pledged himself to the faithful dis- 
charge of his pastoral duties on the day of his Ordi- 
nation. 

University/' the other by " a more judicious Prelate of his own 
University." The Bishop of Lincoln calls his arrangement a List 
of Books, " I shall subjoin a List of Books which every Clergyman 
ought to possess. — I shall divide these into jour classes." In nei- 
ther case was the List of Books proposed as a System of Theology. 
Indeed Lists and Inventories of Books were out of place on the occa- 
sion. A comparison between the Institutes of Limborch and of 
Turretin, of Mosheim and of Doederlein, of Usher and of Fiddes, 
&c. would have been more to the purpose. 



END OF THE POSTSCRIPT. 



77 



NOTE to page 29. 

In unison with the spirit of that unking ly period (1701), I might 
have added — of that unchristian period, with respect to the national 
proceedings 3nd literary productions of republican France, and for 
some years indeed previous to the revolution. In the year 1786 
Larcher published His celebrated translation of Herodotus, the notes 
to which abounded with reflections injurious to Christianity, which 
I mention for the sake of his memorable recantation, of which 
more in this note. In October 1793 the Christian Calendar was 
abolished, and in November of the same year the Christian religion 
was interdicted * by the French Convention. We cannot forget 
the wishes which were uttered, even in this country, in the year 
1796, for the return of Paganism. 

Hail happy errors of delusive thought, 

Unreal visions with true blessings fraught j 

Once more from heaven descend, to mortals kind, 

And cast your magic spells around the mind ; 

Film o'er the sight of speculative eyes, 

Nor let us feel the curse to be too wise. 

But we may reasonably hope that such sentiments may have 
passed away with many other delusions of the period which pro- 
duced them. We happily have it in our power to bring at least one 
instance of decided and explicit recantation, which cannot be too 
generally known. In the first edition of Larcher's Herodotus, the 
notes were largely infected with the antichristian spirit. But in his 
second edition (1802) he has made the amplest amends in his power 
for the injury he had done to Christianity, by publickly renouncing 
his errors, and professing his decided conviction of the truth Gf 
Christianity. He says in his preface (p. xxxviii), " Enfin intiment 
convaincu de toutes les verites qu'enseigne la Religion Chretienne, 
j'ai retrenche, ou reforme" toutes les notes, qui pouvoient la blesser. 
On avoit tire des unes des consequences que j'improuve, et qui 
sont loin de ma pensee. D'autres renfermoient des choses, je dois 
l'avouer avec franchise, et pour l'acquit de ma conscience, qu'un plus 
mur examen et des recherches plus approfondies m'ont demontre 
reposer sur de trop legeres fondemens ou etre absolument fausses. 
La verite ne pent que gngner a cet aveu. C'est a elle seule que j'ai 
consacre de revenir a elle des que j'ai cru l'avoir mieux saisie, 
Puisse cet homage, que je lui rends dans toute la sincerite de mon 
cceur, me faire absoudre de toutes les erreurs que je puis avoir ha- 
sarde'es, et que j'ai cherche' a propager. 

* Lavoisne's Genealogical. Historical. Chronological, and Geo- 
graphical Atlas, Map 3. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



003 057 058 3 



2ri 



